W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Status of RFC 1738 -- 'ftp' URI scheme

From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:31:04 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimWU7G6xg1T=Tfom0yzj9C9DswfGRBSWftqYCwJ@mail.gmail.com>
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

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