- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 23:58:28 -0800
- To: michaelm@rwhois.net
- cc: uri@bunyip.com, connolly@w3.org, urn-ietf@bunyip.com, timbl@w3.org, masinter@parc.xerox.com, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, moore@cs.utk.edu, lassila@w3.org, swick@w3.org, tbray@textuality.com, jeanpa@microsoft.com, cmsmcq@uic.edu, dsr@w3.org, lehors@w3.org, ij@w3.org
>> Please note that the "L" in "URL" represents "Locator", not "Location".
>> Any naming scheme that requires there exist some mechanism for resolution,
>> whether or not the mechanism is currently in operation, changes over time,
>> or subject to multiple levels of indirection, is a locator.
>
>URNs never required a mechanism for resolution.
>
>> There do exist names that are not locators, but those names are not URNs.
>
>Actually, unless the documents have changed the design was that the URN
>need not have a resolution method.
That's what I thought too, until RFC 2141 went up for last call. E.g.,
7. Functional Equivalence in URNs
Functional equivalence is determined by practice within a given
namespace and managed by resolvers for that namespeace.
which in my mind is the same as requiring a resolution method. There is
no value in the "urn" scheme if it doesn't define functional equivalence.
Grump. Somebody should stick a spell checker in the RFC process --
I noticed a few weeks ago that the "Standard Copyright Notice" for all
RFCs has misspelled "implementation".
....Roy
Received on Thursday, 30 October 1997 03:08:30 UTC