- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:04:24 +0100
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
On 15/04/2014 12:36, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > I have just read the draft, and confirmed my impression. Please see > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/d3cqXHPqoB3_OG_djbG_sMVEs2o for some > initial response. Coincidentally (or maybe not), I just sent my response, too: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/E3AE0kIp3xMOJnjzqcRGXURpCIo I, too, am not understanding what problems are actually solved by saying URNs are not URIs. > > P.S.: Yes, the IETF now uses Archived-At! But the mail archive pages that can be > reached that way aren't linked at all :-(. I noticed that too. I guess it's a useful step. #g --
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2014 14:48:17 UTC