W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2010

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:28:26 +0200
Message-ID: <s2h1f2ed5cd1004190028o8d4f1755z9b8c779950086c8c@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@day.com>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, URI <uri@w3.org>
On 19 April 2010 08:18, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@day.com> wrote:

>>> I think you all need to find a better hobby.

We all do :)

URI is a full
>>> Internet Standard and the generic syntax spec isn't likely to
>>> change in the next fifty or so years no matter what color you
>>> want to paint this shed.  You would need a couple thousand
>>> vendors to agree to such a change for it to even come close
>>> to overcoming the consensus we spent fifteen years attaining
>>> on the current name.

I'm damn sure danbri isn't shed painting.

>> We've all been dutifully being saying "URI" for years, around here.

Around where? In the outside world people say URL all the time.

> It is simply IRRELEVANT how many people still use the term URL since
> that term encompasses the exact same set as URI.  It always has.
> If I am talking to a non-technical person, I will talk about URI
> (the standard) and "Web addresses" (browsing) and "references"
> (the stuff you type into the address bar or href).

I don't disagree, but there *is* a huge set of people - developers,
code monkeys - that don't recognise URI (let alone IRI).

> The only problem we've had recently is folks who claim an arbitrary
> reference string is a URL, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever
> no matter what the acronym spells.  "" is not a URL/URI/IRI.  It might
> be a URI reference or an IRI reference.

No, the problems we have are usually to do with people confusing an
identifier of a thing and the identifier of a reference to a thing.

> There is no need to talk clearly about UR-Locators. All URNs are locators.

How so?
urn:roy doesn't locate you, whereas http://roy might

> Being able to use an identifier for locating something has nothing to do
> with its syntax.  It has to do with the availability of a
> resolution/retrieval mechanism.  Changing the name is not going to
> change the desire of some people to keep rehashing that debate --
> it will just introduce yet more ambiguity into the term.

I do believe there is value in acknowledging the lowest common
denominator, as long as (as you say) the folks that need to know have
the specs at hand.

>> What do you prefer as the most over-arching and inclusive term to use
>> in everyday discourse?
> URI (for output) and reference (for input).

That is a nice description.


Received on Monday, 19 April 2010 07:29:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:14 UTC