[vox-tech] one of the most pernicious spams i've ever seen.

[Michael Wenk]

On Thursday 25 September 2003 02:08 pm, Micah J. Cowan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:07:39AM -0700, Michael J Wenk wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 10:57:25AM -0700, Mark K. Kim wrote:
> > > I think what you've described is the URI.  URL is supposed to be a
> > > subset of URI, whatever that means.  I personally don't care but I
> > > wouldn't mind knowing what that means if anyone else knows.
> >
> > I referred to an RFC that desribes URIs, which I did at one time
> > read(several years ago), or perhaps I read it in a book, I forget.  In
> > any event, a URI is the identifier portion of the URL.  It tells you
> > what resource you are trying to get, but not how to get it.  In simpler
> > terms it would be everything to the right of the :// in URL.  I suggest
> > you check the RFC I referenced, as I may be off a bit.
>
> Absolutely untrue, actually. As Mark said, URL is a subset of URI, not
> vice versa. No part of a URL is a URI; all of a URL is always a URI. A
> URI (Universal Resource Identifier) is a superset of URL (Universal
> Resource Identifier), including one other type of identifier (which
> can sometimes overlap URL), URN (Universal Resource Name). URNs are
> beasts which refer to a resource by identifying them uniquely, not
> (necessarily) specifying where they exist. There are several schemes
> in existence, but most of them have yet to be put into practice. One
> noticeable exception is "persistent URLs", which is a URL that is
> expected to persist over time.
>
> The stuff to the left of the first ":" in a URI (URNs have 'em too) is
> called the "scheme".

I stand corrected... Been a bloody long time since I have read the 
documentation on exactly what a URI is vs a URL, and besides all that matters 
is how you use it, unless you have to explain it to someone... 

my bad
Mike

-- 
wenk@praxis.homedns.org
Mike Wenk