4 ms·
On a somewhat related note: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt From section 1.1.3: An individual scheme d
by binarycrusader 15y ago
On a somewhat related note:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt
From section 1.1.3:
An individual scheme does not have to be classified as being just one
of "name" or "locator". Instances of URIs from any given scheme may
have the characteristics of names or locators or both, often
depending on the persistence and care in the assignment of
identifiers by the naming authority, rather than on any quality of
the scheme. Future specifications and related documentation should
use the general term "URI" rather than the more restrictive terms
"URL" and "URN" [RFC3305].
- gojomo 15y agoThat's a very related note! The classic hierarchy ("URLs and URNs are distinct subsets of URIs") wasn't as neat and useful as originally thought, so "it's just URIs now, with their own scheme-specific qualities" is the modern thinking, as reflected by this passage from RFC3986. The modern answer to "What's the difference between a URI and URL?" is thus very nearly 'Mu.'
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]