W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2000

Re: URI equivalence, URI's for "standard" identifiers

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:11:03 -0600
Message-ID: <388C7997.99D6FAE@w3.org>
To: Ron Daniel <RDaniel@DATAFUSION.net>
CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Ron Daniel wrote:
> 
> Dan Connolly is almost correct when he says:
> 
> > There's no reason to indirect via a urn: prefix.
> >       isbn:nnnn
> > is perfectly valid URI syntax[1], provides all the necessary
> > information,
> > and has been in use since Nov 1991. I hope the folks that acutally
> > own and operate the ISBN social process endorse this practice soon
> > and register isbn: with IANA.
> >
> [Ron Daniel]  There is no particular technical reason to
> prefer urn:isbn over isbn:. However, the former is the
> syntax the IETF's working group decided upon,

If you're referring to the URN WG, that WG wasn't chartered
to design all URI schemes; just the one that starts with urn:
It seems to me an entirely open question where the ISBN folks put their
stuff in URI space.

> based strongly
> on the requests of the major browser vendor at the time.

If you have a pointer to that request, I'd really appreciate
it if you'd spare me the time to look it up.

I don't understand why it makes a difference to a browser
vendor where this stuff goes in URI space; browsers are supposed
to have extensible support for new URI schemes in any case,
and at least two of them do.

c.f. http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes#hack-schemes


> Personally, I agree with Dan that the urn: prefix is not
> strictly necessary. But that prefix is actually a religious
> issue (that is, it is a matter of taste rather than clear
> technical merit) and is a known rathole. So professionally I
> try to stick to the standard and not reopen old discussions.

This discussion may be long-standing, but I do not see that it
is decided. If you do, please cite a source.

-- 
Dan Connolly
tel:+1-512-310-2971
http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 24 January 2000 11:16:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:42 GMT