[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Paul Prescod writes:
> I say that *each* HTTP URI is *both* a locator *and* an identifier.
> Mozilla uses it as a locator when you click the link. Google uses it
> as an identifier when it looks up a cached page by URI. This is the
> "contemporary" or "duality view". This view seems more powerful.
>
> "Further according to the contemporary view, the term "URL" does not
> refer to a formal partition of URI space; rather, URL is a useful but
> informal concept: a URL is a type of URI that identifies a resource
via
> a representation of its primary access mechanism (e.g., its network
> "location"), rather than by some other attributes it may have. Thus as
> we noted, "http:" is a URI scheme. An http URI is a URL"
>
> I agree with you that there were problems with the classical view in
> general and URNs in particular. The only places I see URNs emanating
> from are the IETF and Microsoft, an unholy union if I've ever heard of
> one. ;) A URN is half of a URI.
Taken that way, I agree wholeheartedly.
I'm not entirely sure, however, what it will take to abolish the
classical view, and it's the classical view that appears to dominate
most of the URI-centric discourse I've encountered, from specs to
mailing lists.
I'm still not sure how well this fits namespaces, and there's still the
comparison issue to grapple with, but this certainly counts as progress.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
