[history] Re: name for a resource's URI

<history>
However, my giving in by dropping the term "Universal" for "Uniform"  
in the IETF arguments,
while perhaps pragmatic in allowing the URI spec to get through at  
all,  was in other ways
a big mistake.   The argument against "Universal" was something like  
"You can't have the
impertinence to say you are developing something universal, which  
will apply to anything".
In fact I should have retorted that actually (a) the whole point was  
that it *should* be something into
which *any* system's identifiers can be mapped  and (b) that was not  
impertinent as it passes the Test of Independent Invention
<http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Evolution.html#TOII> as anyone else  
can map my universal system
into theirs, and one can gateway the two URI spaces.  But I didn't,  
and if I had, who knows, maybe the
web would have been pushed back on harder by the IETF

The universality of the URI  is a fundamental aspect of the web  
architecture.

It remains that the benefit of the web is primarily the wide  
interoperability of this single namespace.

</history>

On 2007-08 -02, at 09:25, Garret Wilson wrote:

>
> Right. Thanks. It was a long day. ;)
>
> Garret
>
> Hammond, Tony wrote:
>>> as URI means "resource identifier" (and a universal one, at that), I
>>>
>>
>> Nope. Not universal. URI is *not* a universal identifier. It's a  
>> "uniform"
>> identifier. Different kettle of fish.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>>