Re: Clarification of URI vs. resource

In this discussion, there occasionally is a shift from the term "URI"
to the term "URL" and then back.  I've read RFC-2396 several times,
especially section 1.2, but it still looks to me like "URI" could have
been used consistently throughout.  Since the distinction is often
made within a single paragraph (e.g. the paragraph beginning "Frankly"
below), it must have been done deliberately ... Can anyone help me out here?

Thanks!
Geoff

   From: "Larry Masinter" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>

   > Internal members are defined in the context of the request URI used to
   > reference the collection.

   > > An internal member URI MUST be
   > > immediately relative to the base URI of the collection.  That is, the
   > > internal member URI is equal to the containing collection's URI plus an
   > > additional segment for non-collection resources, or additional segment
   plus
   > > trailing slash "/" for collection resources, where segment is defined in
   > > section 3.3 of [RFC2396].

   I can see what you mean, but it isn't what the spec says. The spec
   says it's a constraint between "collection" and "internal member".

   But you're saying that a "collection" as a resource will have different
   "internal member"s (as URIs) depending on the URI with which the collection
   is referenced.

   Frankly, you'd probably be better off if you defined "internal member"
   as a resource, not as a URI, and then note that the internal member
   must be accessible using a URL that is a direct relative URL of whatever
   resource used to access the collection.

   You'd also be better of saying that an 'internal member' can only
   occur twice, that is, if http://host/coll/ is the collection and
   http://host/coll/mem and http://host/coll/MEM are both URIs of the
   same resource, that the resource is a member only once.

   Larry

Received on Thursday, 5 November 1998 13:31:56 UTC