Re: URI vs URL and long list of pedantic gramatical quibbles with the static pages from Philip TAYLOR on 2004-04-30 (www-validator@w3.org from April 2004)

From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:35:25 +0100
To: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Cc: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>, andrew@bml.co.uk, www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <40928E5D.7000904@Rhul.Ac.Uk>

David Dorward wrote:

 > 1. All URLs are also URIs
 > 2. The validator accepts a subset of URLs for that part of its input
 > 3. Any subset of URLs is also a subset of URIs (as a consequence of 1)
 > 4. Some w3c output discusses URIs which are not URLs
 >
 > and from what I gather:
 >
 > 5. For consistency, the term URI is used globally for all w3c output

In 1997, Dan Connolly wrote :

"My suggestion: the distinction isn't useful in any of these cases;
  the public knows them as URLs and URL schemes. So we should do a
  global s/URI/URL/ everywhere.

  2nd choice: do a s/URL/URI/ in all the formal specs,
  begin to educate the public that the list of schemes
  is a list of URI schemes."

I'd like to know why Dan's suggestion was rejected in favour
of his less-preferred fallback option.

** Phil.

Received on Friday, 30 April 2004 13:37:02 UTC