user18444: Hi given that bitcoin:1335STSwu9hST4vcMRppEPgENMHD2r1REK is a valid URI. Is it a valid URL (locator!) as well?
I tend to say yes when I compare sending bitcoins to a bitcoin: URI with sending mails to a mailto: URI. The latter is according to RFC 2368 an URL scheme.

user6990: I took a look this. Bitcoin doesn't reply fit any of these perfectly, but I think it is a URI in that it uniquely identifies a Bitcoin account. The issue is that Bitcoin doesn't really have a location function. I suppose you could say that you can locate Bitcoin address history, but that's not really the purpose of a bitcoin: link. I'm going to say no, it is not a URL. It is however a URN.
EDIT: mailto: is a URL the same way a HTTP URL is. It has a domain name and states the location for sending something. Given this example, I'll change my answer to yes.

18444: <p>Hi given that bitcoin:1335STSwu9hST4vcMRppEPgENMHD2r1REK is a valid URI. Is it a valid <strong>URL</strong> (locator!) as well?</p>
<p>I tend to say yes when I compare sending bitcoins to a <code>bitcoin:</code> URI with sending mails to a <code>mailto:</code> URI. The latter is according to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2368" rel="nofollow noreferrer">RFC 2368</a> an URL scheme.</p>
 6990: <p>I took a look <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/a/1984225">this</a>. Bitcoin doesn't reply fit any of these perfectly, but I think it is a URI in that it uniquely identifies a Bitcoin account. The issue is that Bitcoin doesn't really have a location function. I suppose you could say that you can locate Bitcoin address history, but that's not really the purpose of a <code>bitcoin:</code> link. I'm going to say no, it is not a URL. It is however a URN.</p>

<p>EDIT: <code>mailto:</code> is a URL the same way a HTTP URL is. It has a domain name and states the location for sending something. Given this example, I'll change my answer to yes.</p>
