Re: Clarification of URI vs. resource

Since a URI and a URL are different (i.e. some URI's are not URL's),
then in what sense are they interchangeable for WebDAV?  Either a
given statement is only about the subset of URI's that are URL's
(in which case the term "URL" should be used), or it is about any URI
(in which case the term "URI" should be used).

Or am I missing something subtle? (or even worse, something obvious :-)

And if they are interchangable (in some way I don't yet grok),
why do papers like the "HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring"
use both terms, and thereby give the strong impression that there
is some significance to using one vs. the other?

Cheers,
Geoff

   From: "Larry Masinter" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
   Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 11:48:54 PST

   > 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?

   A URL is a kind of URI. Normally we talk about URIs in WebDAV,
   because the use isn't restricted. However, there is a controversy
   around the use of relative links with URIs that aren't URLs.
   So, when talking about relative links, I slip into using "URL"
   instead of "URI". For the purposes of WebDAV, the two terms are
   interchangable.

   Larry
   -- 
   http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter

Received on Monday, 9 November 1998 11:35:32 UTC