Jonas Sicking wrote: > ... > I think we'd really like to avoid creating a new scheme if we could > reuse an existing one. I know Arun was looking for an existing scheme, > but not sure if he looked at the 'urn' scheme. > > Would it need to be urn:somename:uuid though? like urn:fileid:uuid? > ... What's wrong with urn:uuid, which is defined in RFC 4122 and already cited? > Also, Anne pointed out that we probably want fragment identifiers to > work in whatever URI is returned. Would that be possible if we use > 'urn'? If I'm reading rfc2141 right, it seems to say it's undefined. Fragment identifiers are independent of the URI scheme (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.3.5.p.5>). BR, JulianReceived on Thursday, 8 October 2009 16:54:13 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:34 GMT