- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 15:14:57 -0600
- To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, timbl@w3.org
- Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (E-mail)" <frystyk@w3.org>, khare@w3.org
Yaron Goland wrote: > > Abstract - Should it not be "each extension with a URI" not URL? This > comment generalizes to the rest of the document. And to the rest of the IETF world, as far as I'm concerned. > The proposed use of a > URL actually seems a perfect example of when a URN (if they existed =) > should be used. Although I note that in the Protocol Header definition > you do use URI. Oops. I mean to be consistent. I hope that some day soon, we can all agree that one of those terms is dead and that the other includes all strings of the form scheme:stuff As to my opinion on which of URL and URI should survive, I've said all I care to say on the matter. See the W3C addressing page[1] and glossary[2] if you're curious. The popular jargon follows the NCSA Mosaic documentation: the word knows these things as URLs. The standards track documents (RFC1738 and RFC1808) speak of URLs. I'm tracking the URN WG[3] and the URL syntax and process discussions (hey: where's the WG charter for those?) and I'll follow their lead, unless this working group, its chair, or the applications area director wants to tell me which one to use. [1] http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Addressing/#terms [2] http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Architecture/Terms [3] http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/urn-charter.html > > > > http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Protocols/PEP/ -- Dan Connolly, W3C Architecture Domain Lead <connolly@w3.org> +1 512 310-2971 http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ PGP:EDF8 A8E4 F3BB 0F3C FD1B 7BE0 716C FF21
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 1997 13:19:19 UTC