- From: Daniel R. Tobias <dan@tobias.name>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 07:27:55 -0400
- To: uri@w3.org
On 11 Sep 2003 at 20:54, Al Gilman wrote: > DOI sounds like a second run at defining URNs that seems to have > acquired a following and demonstrated interoperable practice. But shouldn't it be "urn:doi:" instead of just "doi:"? If it's URN- like, why not make it an actual URN? -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Received on Friday, 12 September 2003 07:36:00 UTC