W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > May 2000

Re: URI versus URI Reference

From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 19:21:27 -0400
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: abrahams@acm.org, John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, xml-uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20000524192127.A6754@bailey.dscga.com>
On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 07:19:41PM -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> 
> >> >  One would expect a URI reference to be
> >> > a pointer to a URI, i.e., a doubly indirect specification of a
> >> > resource, and not some generalization or specialization of a URI.
> 
> 
> One would, but one would be wrong. I think the term came around from
> some thought such as "a reference using a URI" or something...
> I was not very involved in the haggles about terms. It is difficult to
> be close to English usage at the end of a lot of specification
> discussions. 

Being tangentially involved in that discussion, the term came 
from the fact that, at the time, the only place that used 
those additional semantics of relative URIs and fragments was found 
in hypertext references inside documents (i.e. places where a base
was defined and there were identified document fragments).

-MM

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | www.rwhois.net/michael
Sr. Research Engineer   |   www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett     | ICQ#:         14198821
Network Solutions	|          www.lp.org          |  michaelm@netsol.com
Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2000 19:32:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:42 UTC