Opaque String syntax

Tue, 29 Aug 1995 13:20:15 -0400

From: weibel@oclc.org
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 13:20:15 -0400
Message-Id: <199508291720.NAA05547@ws02-00.rsch.oclc.org>
To: uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Opaque String syntax

The recent discussion about persistence and naming schemes leads me to 
raise a question about opaque strings in general.  The question is...
Why does this group care?  

I see no reason why an existing naming scheme cannot be
brought into a URN convention:


Let the naming authority decide what the string should look like.
We don't call it an *opaque* string for nothing.

There may be legitimate issues that DO need to be agreed upon by all naming

What, if any, constraints need be placed on opaque strings to assure
that they will be processable by interoperating network applications?
Such a discussion would, I think, be limited to issues of character
encodings, and not the philosophy of naming.