• To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@t...>
• Subject: RE: Comparable considered necessary
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:23:33 -0700
• Cc: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@b...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcJCHASChjtg/sDGQKOp4KU1KeFz0QAAEucl
• Thread-topic: Comparable considered necessary

I meant to be inclusive of all URL schemes. Saying "Take me to One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052" does not tell you whether to fly, drive, cycle or walk with me there just that I should be taken to that physical location. 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@t...] 
	Sent: Mon 8/12/2002 9:19 AM 
	To: Dare Obasanjo 
	Cc: Manos Batsis; xml-dev@l... 
	Subject: Re:  Comparable considered necessary
	
	

	Dare Obasanjo wrote:
	> XML namespaces is the only place I've seen URIs used significantly can you provide any others? Anyway, I decided to give one more shot at explaining my dislike of the whole URIs/URLs mess before bowing out. Here are some analogies
	> 
	> URN: Microsoft 
	> URL: One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
	> URI:  Either of the above.
	> Resource: The Microsoft Corporation
	> 
	> The above is an illustration of why I like URLs and like URNs but despise URIs.
	
	Er by URL do you mean HTTP URI or are you prepared to grant news: and
	mid: and some other schemes?
	
	I agree on liking URLs.  With every year that passes I become less
	convinced that URNs are a good idea.  John Cowan provided a bunch of
	examples on this list earlier (ISBNs, Usenet, etc) of places where the
	identifying string does not, unlike http, imply a retrieval mechanism
	but is still useful.
	
	Personally, all the URIs I care about are HTTP URLs.  Calling a URL a
	URI has never caused me a problem. -Tim
	
	

• Prev by Date: Re: Comparable considered necessary
• Next by Date: Editor's Concrete Syntax (ECS)
• Previous by thread: RE: Comparable considered necessary
• Next by thread: RE: Comparable considered necessary
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread