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