- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:53:32 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, arun@mozilla.com
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, Julian
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 16:54:13 UTC