[uf-discuss] URIs vs URLs (reference)
danny.ayers at gmail.com
Tue Oct 25 18:21:42 PDT 2005
On 10/26/05, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar <drernie at opendarwin.org> wrote:
> Did you read the RFC? I mean what the RFCs say it means:
Yep, no excuses.
> > 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.
Maybe not. I find it more convenient the other way - there's this big
black box called the Web, I can talk to it over HTTP, but I have to
say which resource I want to look at/change.
More information about the microformats-discuss