W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > May 2004

Re: URI vs URL and long list of pedantic gramatical quibbles with the static pages

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 16:45:42 +0300 (EEST)
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0405041641450.5780@korppi.cs.tut.fi>

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Beton, Richard wrote:

> in pigeon summary,  URI  =  URL  +  URN

Surely, but in practical terms URN = 0, so what does that give to us?

There's little reason to use the theoretical URI concept for practical
purposes like a validator's user interface or messages.

Even HTML specifications don't use the terminology in a technically
correct way. They say (e.g. in describing the permitted values of the href
attribute) "URI" when they really mean "URI reference". The authoritative
specification, RFC 2396, makes a clear distinction between the two.
We can live with this situation. We could also live (better) with the
"URL" term being used by the validator.

-- 
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2004 09:46:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:13 GMT