W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > June 2003

Re: A URN is a particular URI scheme

From: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
Date: 11 Jun 2003 09:18:01 -0400
To: "Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>
Cc: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, fielding@apache.org, uri@w3.org
Message-Id: <1055337480.8541.54.camel@blackdell.neonym.net>

On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 09:15, Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) wrote:
> Hmm. Just wonder why we need to dignify one URI scheme over all others by
> giving it a special name. Seems invidious. Or does that mean that it is
> somehow special? Otherwise why not refer to a 'dav' URI as a DAV, etc?
> 
> I know the whole thing is just a horrid, historical accident, but are there
> no means to redress this?
> 

I thought about that a little back when the URI IG was discussing the
'contemporary view' and the pain just didn't seem worth it. We had to
many documents that used it and, while people got really confused over
URI vs URL, they did seem to grok URN pretty well. What confused them
about URNs was whether or not they should use them. And that wasn't a
function of the name but of some rhetoric being used at the time.

I'm sure it is within the realm of possibility to completely change the
entire nomenclature but a) would it be possible to agree on a new one,
b) would it be possible to promulgate it and c) would it really be worth
it compared to all of the other things that desperately need doing?
Based on my experience the answer to all three is no....

-MM
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2003 09:23:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:31 GMT