- From: Paul W. Abrahams <abrahams@valinet.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 12:10:54 -0400
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@attlabs.att.com>
- CC: abrahams@acm.org, michaelm@netsol.com, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, xml-uri@w3.org, Roy Fielding <fielding@ics.uci.edu>
Larry Masinter wrote: > 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. I'm not convinced there really is such an ambiguity. But I agree with the spirit of what you're doing here. If there is an ambiguity, explain it. If there isn't, provide a definition of what a URI is. To leave the term URI not just undefined but also unexplained is asking for trouble. I think everyone would agree that the standard should be usable by people who weren't involved in writing it. Paul Abrahams
Received on Saturday, 27 May 2000 12:11:04 UTC