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

Michael Mealling (
Sun, 26 Oct 1997 16:30:57 -0500 (EST)

From: Michael Mealling <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs
In-Reply-To: <> from Keith Moore at "Oct 26, 97 04:18:40 pm"
To: (Keith Moore)
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 16:30:57 -0500 (EST)

Keith Moore said this:
> There's a set of resource identifiers that are desirable for use 
> in HTML.   Currently that set includes URLs and probably URNs.
> Other things may crop up in the future, but as yet they're 
> undefined, and we don't know much about how they're going to be 
> used -- so we probably shouldn't talk about them in specifications.
> So the question is, does W3C:
> a) define the term "URIs" to be (essentially) "the set of 
> resource identifiers that we might want to use in HTML", or
> b) assign some other name besides "URIs" to that set, or
> c) simply list the currently known kinds of resource identifiers
> that have this property, without assigning a name to that set?
> (note that if one set of resource identifiers is a subset
> of another set, it doesn't hurt to list them both)

I think Dan's other suggestion was:

d) let the IETF define those things and then let the W3C cite
those RFCs it thinks are appropriate to what the W3C wants to do.

Dan's whole problem is that the W3C likes to point to IETF RFCs
on this issue and we're not clear in our terms.

> Actually, the more we have this discussion, the more I'm inclined
> to suggest that IETF and W3C ban (= "agree to not define") any new 
> kinds of resource identifiers, beyond URL and URN, whose names 
> begin with the letter U. 
> ...which would imply a preference for option b or c over a.
> But I won't object if W3C chooses option a.
> I think this choice is now as clear as it's going to get.

Sure. Now how do we make the decision?


Michael Mealling	| 505 Huntmar Park Drive       | Phone:  (703)742-0400
Software Engineer	| Herndon, VA 22070	       | Fax:    (703)742-9552
Network Solutions	| <URL:>  |