> Are you saying that HTTP URLs are also URNs? No, URNs are only those URI that start with a "urn" scheme. What I said is that HTTP URLs are identifiers, and hence names, and therefore capable of being a symbolic replacement for any other identifier, including URNs. > Does that mean that > all of the work being done by the URN WG is for nothing? Are they > just wasting their time, since we already have HTTP URLs and can > just use those? I have been saying that for the past eight years. That doesn't mean it is a waste of their time, only that the solution to persistent naming isn't obtained merely by changing the scheme name. ....RoyReceived on Friday, 16 November 2001 15:44:56 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:27 GMT