[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pacewith

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pacewith James Clark)
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 11:16:25 -0400
• References: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C1020ED4C1@r...>

[Joshua Allen]


> Can you clarify what you see as the disjoint between "URL" and "URI"?  To
me, the only difference is that one depends on DNS, and the other doesn't.
But surely you are thinking of some other issue?
>

A URI is intended to allow you to "identify"  something, and that something
does not have to be a retrievable resource. It can be abstract.  A URL is a
special case that gives you an identifier that does work for retrieving an
actual resource.

From rfc 2396,  "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax":

"A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a compact string of characters
   for identifying an abstract or physical resource."

This is a deeper difference that just "depending on DNS", I would say.

Cheers,

Tom P

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pacewith James Clark)
    • From: Mike Brown <mike@s...>

• References:
  • RE: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark)
    • From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pace
• Next by Date: Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pace
• Previous by thread: RE: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark)
• Next by thread: Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pacewith James Clark)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread