- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:31:04 -0800
- To: "Cheney, Austin" <Austin.Cheney@travelocity.com>
- Cc: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, URI <uri@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Cheney, Austin <Austin.Cheney@travelocity.com> wrote: >... > The distinction there is resolution versus identification. URL seeks to > resolve a resource and URI identifies a resource. RDF puts this > distinction into practice. Your terminology is imprecise, and in this case precision is crucial. Resolution is something that curl, or Chrome or Mobile Safari does. URLs do not resolve things. They identify resources which software programs can later resolve. >... > As long as there exists an imperative need to resolve resources > addressed by URI the intention of URL remains necessary, and therefore > valid even if the language and examples expressed in the corresponding > document have exceed their usefulness. I disagree with your terminology and am not sure I understand your point, but I think it can be summarized as "there is a difference between URLs and URIs and therefore the specification for URLs is not obsolete." If I understand your concern correctly then I would respond:that RFC 3986 has section 1.1.3. URI, URL, and URN, which clarifies the distinction. Paul Prescod
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2011 07:31:57 UTC