- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 17:08:27 -0700
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>, timbl@w3.org, fielding@ics.uci.edu, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, uri@bunyip.com, lassila@w3.org, swick@w3.org, jeanpa@microsoft.com, cmsmcq@uic.edu, dsr@w3.org, lehors@w3.org, ij@w3.org, slein@wrc.xerox.com, jdavis@parc.xerox.com
At 06:11 PM 24/10/97 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: >So if the URL/URN distinction is that way, please, PLEASE >show me! Please give an example where the use of the >term URN vs URL vs URI in the HTML, HTTP, XML, or RDF >specs will break things. I don't think Dan was asking me, but 1. if the XML spec says URL and somebody sends me a doc with an external reference to urn:ietf:rfc:1661 I probably won't be able to resolve it, but at least I have some self-defense because I can make a strong case that it's not a URL, so I can tell the sender he's not XML-conformant. 2. If the XML spec says URI and the same thing happens, then I have no defense, because the sender can say "That's a URN, and a URN is a URI, and the spec says I can give you URIs." I.e. conformance without interoperability. I think this qualifies as breakage as a direct result of using URI rather than URL, but then I'm simple-minded.
Received on Friday, 24 October 1997 20:18:25 UTC