- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 21:58:31 -0400 (EDT)
- To: connolly@w3.org (Dan Connolly)
- Cc: timbl@w3.org, fielding@ics.uci.edu, masinter@parc.xerox.com, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, moore@cs.utk.edu, uri@bunyip.com, lassila@w3.org, swick@w3.org, tbray@textuality.com, jeanpa@microsoft.com, cmsmcq@uic.edu, dsr@w3.org, lehors@w3.org, ij@w3.org
to follow up on what Dan Connolly said: > > Several W3C documents (HTML, XML, RDF) need to cite > the UR* specs. We're trying to figure out whether > to use the term "URL" or "URI" and in turn, what > specs to cite. > > Choices include RFC1630 (informational), RFC1738/1808 (proposed > standard) and the syntax/process drafts (in progress). > It doesn't take a separate W3C-NOTE document, a footnote will do it nicely. at least for HTML, say the purpose of an HREF is to hold a URI. Take the following paragraph: URI: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) are references to resources outside the current document. The general concept is explained in [RFC 1630]. Common URI forms are the Uniform Resource Locators (URL) specified in [RFC1738] and [RFC1808] or their successors [BCP9]. Additional URI forms are being developed under the concept of a Uniform Resource Name (URN) [RFC2141]. Place that paragraph in a glossary or a footnote at the first use of URI. Link to this definition where you use URI throughout the document. QED. When I said to tie the HTML specification to the IETF process and not a specific product, all I meant was the "or their successors" part. -- Al Gilman
Received on Friday, 24 October 1997 21:59:03 UTC