Updating RFC2396 (Was:Re: URI versus URI Reference)

Larry Masinter wrote:

> I think I have a different idea...
>
> When we update RFC 2396, I suggest we add an introductory paragraph
> explaining that the term "URI" is used ambiguiously in the community
> to mean "a URI reference" (corresponding to the URI-reference BNF entity)
> or "an absolute URI", and that for this reason, the term "URI" itself
> is not defined in the document.
>
> I'd probably fix the Abstract correspondingly, e.g.,
> "Informally, a Uniform Resource Identifier is a compact string...."
>
> so that people don't think that the abstract is normative.

I'm not convinced there really is such an ambiguity.  But I agree with the
spirit of what you're doing here.  If there is an ambiguity, explain it.  If
there isn't, provide a definition of what a URI is.   To leave the term URI
not just undefined but also unexplained is asking for trouble.

I think everyone would agree that the standard should be usable by people
who weren't involved in writing it.

Paul Abrahams