Re: Comments on "Generic URN Syntax"

Patrik Faltstrom (paf@bunyip.com)
Sun, 9 Jul 1995 23:13:06 -0400


Message-Id: <v0211010bac2648e8867a@[192.197.208.4]>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 1995 23:13:06 -0400
To: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>, uri@bunyip.com
From: paf@bunyip.com (Patrik Faltstrom)
Subject: Re: Comments on "Generic URN Syntax"

At 20.52 95-07-09, Roy Fielding wrote:
>I object to this change of syntax (and I made the same objection to
>Mitra's draft).  When a syntactical element is needed to represent
>hierarchy, the "/" character is what should be used.  The examples
>should be
>
>   <URN: dns-2:physics.bigstate.edu/thesis12>
>   <URN: wlnk:physics.bigstate.edu/thesis12>
>
>On the other hand, you may want to give a more realistic example, like
>
>   <URN: path:/edu/bigstate/physics/thesis12>
>
>as a comparison.

I do not agree with this. There is a need for recognizing the three
different parts of a URN by the syntax because different resolution
methods might be used when resolving the service/host part and from
what is used when sending the "opaque string" to the service.

If then '/' or ':' is used to be this reserved character, that
can be discussed.

=46or this reason, I don't think that
<URN: path:/edu/bigstate/physics/thesis12>
should be a valid URN, because you don't know
where the hostname ends and the pathname starts.

I know that there is in the path scheme built in
functionality to find this border by querying DNS,
but I don't like the fact that the syntax by doing this
requires a specific protocol for resolution.

The syntax must be protocol independent.

     Patrik