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

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

From: Cheney, Austin <Austin.Cheney@travelocity.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 15:22:42 -0600
To: Dan B. <danb@kempt.net>, URI <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9FB4E1C2C67D214BAF184CE12F7DF4DB29139D25AE@SGTULMMP005.Global.ad.sabre.com>
>> Resolution is something that curl, or Chrome or Mobile Safari does.
>> URLs do not resolve things.
>
> You're mixing up two different kinds of resolution, aren't you?
>
> There's the resolution of relative URI references into URIs (which
> the URI RFCs specifies), and then there's the resolution of URIs/URLs
> to the resources to which they refer.

Yes, I am mixing up "resolution" from two different
definitions/contexts.  This distinction is made more ambiguous in a
later email:

>> How are URI scheme names differentiated as a specified instance of
>> URI syntax from transmission protocols of the same name?  I cannot
>> determine where RFC 3986 discusses transmission.  The closest I could
>> find is:
>>
>> A common misunderstanding of URIs is that they are only used to refer
>> to accessible resources.  The URI itself only provides
>> identification; access to the resource is neither guaranteed nor
>> implied by the presence of a URI.
>
> They aren't.

Thanks,

Austin Cheney, Travelocity User Experience
CISSP TS/SCI


-----Original Message-----
From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dan B.
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 12:45 PM
To: URI
Subject: Re: Status of RFC 1738 -- 'ftp' URI scheme

Cheney, Austin wrote:
>> 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.
....
>> Your terminology is imprecise, and in this case precision is crucial.
>
> My terminology comes directly from RFC 1738 and RFC 3986.  If precision
> is crucial then let's not start making things up.  It seems from the
> following language the inference in question appears to be confusion of
> grammar versus vocabulary.
>
>> Resolution is something that curl, or Chrome or Mobile Safari does.
>> URLs do not resolve things.

You're mixing up two different kinds of resolution, aren't you?

There's the resolution of relative URI references into URIs (which
the URI RFCs specifies), and then there's the resolution of URIs/URLs
to the resources to which they refer.


> In this the problem is confusion of verb versus adverb.  "Resolve" is a
> verb, an action, but I have not seen this word used in RFC 1738 or RFC
> 3986 to describe URL.  The word "resolution" is an adverb, ...

Actually, no, "resolution" is not adverb.  It's a noun.  (And adverb
says _how_ something is done (e.g., "correctly"), not _what_ is done
("resolution").)


Daniel


Received on Sunday, 16 January 2011 21:23:48 UTC

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