Re: Comments on "Generic URN Syntax"

Patrik Faltstrom (
Sun, 9 Jul 1995 23:13:06 -0400

Message-Id: <v0211010bac2648e8867a@[]>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 1995 23:13:06 -0400
To: Roy Fielding <>,
From: (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:>
>   <URN:>
>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.