[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Jan 25, 2004, at 6:38 PM, Joe English wrote:
> 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 have not found the distinction to be very clear logically or
philosophically, nor particularly useful operationally.
> I'm with Simon and Hendrik: "URL" is a more precise
> term than "URI", even if it's not officially defined
> in an RFC.
I'm a computer programmer. I like to have normative specifications.
Please either write or reference the normative specifications. For
example, when you say "URL" does that exclude URNs? I think it does,
but you need to be sure. On the other hand, I suspect that you'd be
happy with some "ftp:" URIs. Does it exclude
http://www.tbray.org/no-steenkin-data-here because I *guarantee* that
an attempt to dereference will return a 404? Does it include
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2004/02/29/ which will very
likely have useful content five weeks from now, but doesn't now? If
you want to *require* that something be a URL, you need to be clear
about what you mean by that. -Tim
smime.p7s
|
