Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

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 ]