[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Tim Bray wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2004, at 12:29 PM, Henrik Martensson wrote:
> >> I have no qualms about exposing URLs. People are familiar with URLs,
> >> and the notion of pointing to something using a URL is
> >> well-understood.
> >
> > Agreed. (And thank you for writing "URL" and not "URI".)
>
> Well, there's nothing wrong with using URL as long as you are clear
> exactly what you mean.
"Uniform Resource Locator", or "URI intended to be used
as an address" if you want to be terminologically correct.
> This is made a bit more difficult by the fact
> that there's no normative definition which is still in effect, last
> time I checked.
Hey, it's not *our* fault the people in charge
of making the normative definitions don't believe
in the difference between names and addresses :-)
I'm with Simon and Hendrik: "URL" is a more precise
term than "URI", even if it's not officially defined
in an RFC.
--Joe English
jenglish@flightlab.com
|
