[uf-discuss] URIs vs URLs (reference)
Dr. Ernie Prabhakar
drernie at opendarwin.org
Tue Oct 25 16:46:23 PDT 2005
On Oct 25, 2005, at 3:23 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
> On 10/25/05, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar <drernie at opendarwin.org> wrote:
>> Hmm, I read that as agreeing with my understanding, which matches the
>> "contemporary" view:
>>> The W3C and IETF should jointly develop and endorse a model for
>>> URIs, URLs and URNs consistent with the '"Contemporary View"
> Sorry, I don't actually know what you mean by the contemporary view.
> As a spec-tart I'd go with what the RFCs say. What do you mean?
> (Direct question #1)
Did you read the RFC? I mean what the RFCs say it means:
> 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.
The RFC first defines the contemporary view, then they recommend
formally affirming it.
> So, direct question #2: how do you see URL being advantageous?
I know what they mean: they refer to what I get when I follow that
link. They have a concrete realization, not just an abstract
idealization. It avoids all sorts of nasty epistemic hairballs;
plus, in case of doubt I can just follow the darn link and get *some*
Is it a huge deal? Maybe not, but its a great convenience.
--- Ernie P.
Ernest N. Prabhakar, Ph.D. <drernie at opendarwin.org>
Ex-Physicist, Marketing Weenie, and Dilettante Hacker
Probe-Hacker blog: http://www.opendarwin.org/~drernie/
More information about the microformats-discuss