Jonathan Rees wrote: > This isn't academic. The Library of Congress trashes the http: scheme > [1] in the same way that the LSID spec does - they say it's no good > because URIs are locators (first answer) instead of "identifiers" > (references; second answer). The justification for using http: for > literature reference, even in the best of circumstances, has got to be > better than "trust me" or "it usually works" or "you're being anal". > > [1] http://www.loc.gov/standards/uri/news.html Note that they "trash" both the URL and the URN scheme for -- unlike the "info" scheme -- implying resolvability. In practice, people will know that you can resolve an "unresolvable" URI such as info:arxiv/hep-th/9901001 to http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9901001, so the main difference I guess is that with "info" URIs the resolution is non-standard and namespace-specific...Received on Sunday, 14 October 2007 14:45:32 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:16:43 GMT