- From: Ryan Moats <jayhawk@ds.internic.net>
- Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 08:32:08 -0600
- To: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
- Cc: Towsner <tows@earthlink.net>, Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, leslie@bunyip.com, tme@CasA.usno.navy.mil, urn-ietf@bunyip.com, jcurran@bbn.com, uri@bunyip.com
My turn to add my two cents worth... Martin J. Duerst wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Towsner wrote: > > > >Checksums and other kinds of decorations can be done outside the > > >URL. Think of it as a metascheme: > > > ck:<checksum><url> > > > e.g. ck:A3Bd:http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter > > > > I like the idea of having the checksum be optional, as a > > meta-scheme. > > Same for me. I'll make three... > >I also think the checksum should be limited to alpha-numeric > > characters, to avoid confusion. > > What do you mean by "limited to alpha-numeric characters"? Can you be > more precise. How about just hex characters to keep it simple... > >Perhaps this should be part of the URL > > scheme as well. > > If it is a metascheme, then it is a new URI scheme. It doesn't > have to be discussed either in URL nor in URN syntax. It would > go into a separate draft. It has to make sure, on its own, > that it is compatible with the URL/URN syntax. I agree with Martin, and if we use ck:<hex sequence> then we are already compatible with the URL/URN character sets. How to generate the hex sequence is another headache altogether... > Perhaps the URL syntax draft, where it speaks about URIs, > could be generalized in the direction of metaschemes. > From the syntax viewpoint, we already have two metaschemes > (urn: and ck:), which can even be combined together, > as ck:urn:namespace:NSS. Martin is correct here as well. Ryan
Received on Friday, 20 December 1996 09:34:56 UTC