- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:10:17 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, arun@mozilla.com
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:53:32 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> > wrote: >> >> 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? > > You need to know what the URL is for in other contexts. It seems nicer if > that is explicit from the scheme rather than some additional bit of data > that is attached to the uuid. You mean that this would be tricky implementation-wise? Since you need to know that a specific uuid references a File rather than something else? / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 18:11:09 UTC