Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs

Al Gilman (asgilman@access.digex.net)
Fri, 24 Oct 1997 21:58:31 -0400 (EDT)


From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
Message-Id: <199710250158.VAA25128@access4.digex.net>
Subject: Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs
To: connolly@w3.org (Dan Connolly)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 21:58:31 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: timbl@w3.org, fielding@ics.uci.edu, masinter@parc.xerox.com,
In-Reply-To: <344FD953.2895@w3.org> from Dan Connolly at "Oct 23, 97 06:10:11 pm"

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