Re: RFC2396bis wording, opinions?


I thought there were two actually terms in use: 'internet' and 'Internet'. 
An 'internet' is any telecom system of interconnected networks (e.g. an 
intranet). The 'Internet' is just one particular instance of a rather public 
'internet' - pretty big one, mind. But just one instance, nevertheless.

In same way, there are multiple webs out there. One just tends to have this 
capital 'W'.


>From: Mike Brown <>
>Subject: Re: RFC2396bis wording, opinions?
>Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 12:32:59 -0600 (MDT)
>Pat Hayes wrote:
> > OR, slightly better:
> >
> > -----
> >
> > The word 'resource' is used as a general term, meaning anything that
> > can in principle be identified by a Uniform Resource Identifier; each
> > URI scheme defines the range of things that are identified by URIs
> > using that scheme. Commonly, URIs are used to identify Internet
> > accessible objects or services; for example, an electronic document,
> > an image, a service (e.g., "today's weather report for  Los
> > Angeles"), a collection of other resources. However, URIs might be
> > used to denote entities which are not accessible via the Internet,
> > such as human beings, corporations, bound books in a library, and
> > even abstract concepts. Some URI schemes are naming schemes which
> > identify the things they denote, so that the scope of what counts as
> > a 'resource' is limited only by the availability of URI naming
> > schemes.
>Just a minor suggestion... I realize it's just an example, but since
>private TCP/IP based networks / intranets commonly employ URIs but are
>not always considered "the Internet", I would prefer to say
>   "objects or services accessible via a network such as the Internet"
>rather than
>   "Internet accessible objects or services",
>and would say
>   "not accessible via a network"
>rather than
>   "not accessible via the Internet".

It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!

Received on Friday, 28 May 2004 15:43:51 UTC