Re: [URN] Re: URI documents

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

> What some of us
> ask for are your document divided in three so it is crystal clear what is
> a definition for URIs, what is URLs and what is URNs. 

The proposal (c) divides (b) into two, not into three. I'm
guessing you really meant "two".

And the question is whether (c) actually makes it "crystal clear"
what is a definition for URIs, what is URLs and what is URNs. I think
we all want the definitions to be "clear", but it is exactly the clarity
of these documents that we're discussing.

In an earlier message, it sounds like you are saying that you have
reviewed (b) (draft-fielding-uri-syntax) and (c) (Leslie's two-documents),
and that "(c) is the only working solution". Do you mean to say
that you also have found (a) and (d) unacceptable?

Do you find it less, or more confusing, to have both:

>    Many URL schemes have been defined.  The scheme defines the
>    space of the URL, and thus may further restrict the syntax and
>    semantics of identifiers using that scheme.

in the URL document, and also

>   Many URI schemes have been defined.  The scheme defines the
>   namespace of the URI, and thus may further restrict the syntax and
>   semantics of identifiers using that scheme.

in the URI document?



> This is needed because the document currently under the name of a URI
> syntax document talk so much about URLs, and use a terminology that is
> only valid for URLs, that confusion occurs regarding, if nothing else, the
> difference between a URL and a URN. It does not help that the document
> have "may" all over the place.

Can you say what the 'confusion' is? There's a section 1.2 URI, URL, and URN,
which attempts to discuss the difference.  Is this confusion also in
place for (d) or (a)?

> I think it is definitely better if we have documents about URIs, URNs and
> URLs, so the number of "may" can be limited to a minimum when we talk
> about so important things as grammars and what characters are allowed, how
> encoding is done and how to handle/accept things like fragments, queries
> and relative addressing.

There are no fewer "may"s in the combined (c) than there are in (b).

As far as I can tell, there is no proposal to have a different
set of allowed characters in "URI" than in "URL", so I'm not sure 
waht you mean by "what characters are allowed". Also, I don't see
any proposals to have a different mechanism for encoding for URNs
and URLs. Are you suggesting there might be such a thing?

I agree that the query forms are unlikely to apply to URNs, that relative
addressing is problematic, and that fragments are controversial, but your
message indicated that you belive there are more extensive differences
that are not just restrictions, which would be a much more serious issue.

Larry
-- 
http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter