News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious. Parent comment

Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious by corty on Monday July 20, 2020 @08:57AM (#23897314)
The difference between URI and URL is practically meaningless except to a very small circle of specialists. Noone uses the name "URI", even when they are talking about one. Except if they explicitly want to signal their membership in that circle of experts.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious by wjnc on Monday July 20, 2020 @09:43AM (#23897719)
Am I wrong to suppose that L is locator and I is indicator, thus I being a more broadly term and a somewhat nerdy term for Source?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious by corty on Monday July 20, 2020 @09:55AM (#23897841)
L is locator, I is identifier. URLs are a subset of URIs. Both start with a schema (something:...), but URIs lack the information about the location and way to get at a resource. The canonical example for identifier-but-not-location is an ISBN or DOI. That interpretation however requires a very peculiar interpretation of "location", because imho "where can I read about that" can precisely be answered by "ISBN ...". The usual copout "but you don't know where the next library will be" also makes all the traditional URLs non-locations, because you then also don't always know where the next browser is or how to operate it.

The rest of the responsible RFC is also not very useful: https://danielmiessler.com/study/difference-between-uri-url/

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious by 0xffff2 on Monday July 20, 2020 @11:54AM (#23899056)
Being too lazy to go ready RFCs on a Monday morning, is what a valid schema consists of spelled out? Is `isbn://0441569595` a valid URI? If so, is there a standardized list of schemas?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious by corty on Monday July 20, 2020 @08:55PM (#23903410)
Read the article, someone already read the RFC for you. To your questions: Yes. Almost, urn:isbn:123-4567-89 (URNs are something I neglected to mention to keep things simple). Yes, the IANA maintains a registry.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious by sukilot on Monday July 20, 2020 @09:57AM (#23897867)
URIs can lack the information. Not necessarily.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious by sukilot on Monday July 20, 2020 @09:56AM (#23897852)
I is Identifier.

It's broader in the sense that every URL is a URI, but the converse is not true.

URI somewhat nerdier because it's lesser known.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious by throw7 on Monday July 20, 2020 @12:54PM (#23899638)
uri encompasses/superset of both url and urn (there was also urc that went no where). urls have a "scheme" (http/ftp/gopher/etc) to access the resource, while urn is a persistent non-location based type of name identifier e.g. urn:ietf:rfc:2648
[ Parent | on HN ]