[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2002-02-16 at 11:19, Paul Prescod wrote:
> > You're right that it is an uphill battle arguing for fundamental
> > architectural change in the most successful information system in
> > history.
>
> URLs are genuinely successful. The scheme: approach was a good idea.
> However, I don't think any strong case can be made that URIs are genuine
> contributors to the success of that information system, except to the
> extent that they overlap with URLs - and, in many ways, damage the
> usefulness of URLs.
I don't really distinguish between URIs and URLs for two reasons:
1. I don't want to get into a philisophical debate on the distinction.
2. Almost all of the URIs I see are actually URLs.
When I say that URIs are great I don't mean as opposed to URLs, I mean
including URLs. I use the terms as described here:
URI
Uniform Resource Identifier. The generic set of all names/addresses that
are short strings that refer to resources.
URL
Uniform Resource Locator. An informal term (no longer used in technical
specifications) associated with popular URI schemes: http, ftp, mailto,
etc.
People SHOULD treat URLs (even HTTP) ones more like *identifiers* rather
than *locators* in the sense that you should think of the identifier as
being welded to the resource and not just a convenient way of finding it
on the network.
* http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
Paul Prescod
|
