- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@Adobe.COM>
- Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 22:14:38 -0800
- To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>, "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Cc: <uri@w3.org>, "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>, "Michael Mealling" <michaelm@netsol.com>, "Ted Hardie" <hardie@equinix.com>
"If wishes were horses then beggars would ride." If http URLs were as stable as we wished them to be, then we could use them in all of our specs. W3C as an organization may decide that its identifiers will be meaningful and unambiguous only as long as it has the right to use "http://www.w3.org/" but I see no good reason to force that practice on everyone else. That you, Aaron Swartz, do not see the need to use anything other than "http://www.iana.org", which has sufficient stability for your own purposes, doesn't mean that it will meet the needs of everyone else. I suppose this argument will persist until we resolve the W3C/IETF split over the utility of URNs and their role in protocol element identification. Larry
Received on Sunday, 21 January 2001 01:15:24 UTC