If I missed something, cool, but as I understand the RFCs,
A URL is one kind of scheme of a URI. Hence,
URI: url:http://www.w3.org/somepage.html
and URL: http://www.23.org/somepage.html
are equivalent. The distinction being that the URI includes URL:
to specify the scheme.
Based on that assumption, I can find just one possible user agent in
current practice which may accept the URI form (possible because
my test document wasn't available and I typed a URI on the
screen and it worked).
Based on my check of netscape (X & Win), Mosaic (win) and
websurfer, I must concluded that specification of a URI as the
target of HREF on an anchor is not current practice.
Have I missed something?
Is there a compelling reason to specify URI and not URL in
this version of the standard. If so, then we need to add the
words to warn off early usage by information providers.
Otherwise, seems to me that all use of URI should change to
reference URL?
Dave Morris