Re: URI: Name or Network Location?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Hi Joshua,

while I basically agree that HTTP would have been a good choice here,
one point--

Joshua Allen wrote:
| The justification offered in the FAQ seems to boil down to a fallacy --
| since URLs and URNs *can* be used to locate things, then they by nature
| are not suitable for *identifying* things, and therefore, the authors
| must invent a new scheme for resource identification.  This is patently
| false -- the primary purpose of URIs (and especially URNs) has always
| been to identify, and resolvability is a secondary and non-critical
| facet.

I'm surprised by this. Isn't the original use case of URIs <a href="">?
Would you argue that resolvability is secondary there? Sure, URIs have
many uses beyond that, but I'd think that Web links are the originally
most important one.

I'm not sure I understood your reasoning right.

Cheers,
- - Benja
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAEVy2UvR5J6wSKPMRAuQuAJ0XSpV3QLIhIJnK0S6Ljee+EH/roACg035j
lnAoLhxpUAOn6mo0n+hBgsY=
=cy76
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----