Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A lot of standards replaced “URL” with “URI” I've seen this argument before—that URLs came first—and it's junk. The accusation of URIs as a retcon is itself a retcon. First, even if we grant all of your premises, the fact that URLs are URIs contradicts the entire argument. Secondly, it was always about identifiers. Not making any appearance in TBL's "Information Management: A Proposal" is the term URL (and neither…
> I've seen this argument before—that URLs came first I didn't make that argument. I said that a number of standards replaced reference to URLs in earlier versions with references to URI in later ones as part of a movement among those involved in the standards to focus (refocus, if you prefer) on identifiers whereas previous usage in the context of those standards had focused on URLs function as locators. And, also,…
Fine, but that's not exculpatory. What that means, then, is that what you wrote is a comment that has no bearing on the thing that I wrote.
Do you have something that is relevant to what I wrote—or is your input in the thread limited to the sort of dismissive, superficially-relevant-but-not-really pseudo-retort from your first comment?