Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"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
|
