- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@attlabs.att.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 23:48:52 -0700
- To: <abrahams@acm.org>, <michaelm@netsol.com>
- Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, <xml-uri@w3.org>, "Roy Fielding" <fielding@ics.uci.edu>
I think I have a different idea... When we update RFC 2396, I suggest we add an introductory paragraph explaining that the term "URI" is used ambiguiously in the community to mean "a URI reference" (corresponding to the URI-reference BNF entity) or "an absolute URI", and that for this reason, the term "URI" itself is not defined in the document. I'd probably fix the Abstract correspondingly, e.g., "Informally, a Uniform Resource Identifier is a compact string...." so that people don't think that the abstract is normative. Getting RFC 2396 out was enormously difficult; I originally had the idea that the revision should combine 1738 and 1808, but in retrospect, it's just led to a lot of trouble. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net >
Received on Saturday, 27 May 2000 02:49:33 UTC