- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:53:47 +0100
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- CC: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Robin Berjon wrote: > On Nov 18, 2009, at 13:13 , Julian Reschke wrote: > Robin Berjon wrote: >>> ... >>> Couldn't we just register a URN NID for this? It seems that one has to go through fewer hurdles, and no matter how transient I believe that it's a useful thing to identify. >>> ... >> Yes, that's possible and probably would cause less eyebrows being raised... > > It also doesn't seem like a lot of work, registration doesn't require specifying the behaviour of the beast (which we'd leave where it is today). We could take the urn:transient-data NID, or urn:data-handle (whichever way the bike is shed today) and toss a UUID at the end of it; then declare victory. If you go that way I'd recommend a UUID + a user-defined suffix; this allows implementations to generate less UUIDs; for instance a single one per session plus a sequence number. BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 17:54:31 UTC