Naïve optimism there
Having said that, motivation casts its shadow: why on Earth would someone conceive of such stupidity and devote time and thousands of words to propose that it should be a standard?
Don't laugh. Have you ever heard of RDF, the Semantic Web, and the W3C?
First you specify the concept of URI as globally-unique identifier, and try vainly to make a meaningless distinction between URI and URL. Then you start using URLs (sorry, URIs) prefaced with http://some-domain/ . But now you've got something recognisable: your URI maps naturally to a web address, or even a web page. So you can dereference it, and talk about web URLs in RDF terms.
You call it the Semantic Web, and make grand claims for it. You can start talking about the web page dereferenced by the URL. Except, you're in cloud-cuckoo-land. All that you say in RDF is predicated on the properties of the URI as a globally-unique invariant. But you're using the language to talk about something that may change at any time (e.g. El Reg front page), or according to metadata in the HTTP headers (e.g. what I get if I try to post this when not logged on). Result: gibberish.
Think it couldn't happen? Think someone would notice before it went public and got widely promoted? Just look at the history of W3C Annotea, which does everything I just described. And when I was on the working group for EARL, it was a lot of work and some Heath-Robinson constructs with time and metadata to allow us to avoid the same howler.