W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > November to December 2001

RE: What is at the end of the namespace?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:05:42 +0200
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B78877321144043114C0B7@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: fielding@ebuilt.com
Cc: sean@mysterylights.com, www-talk@w3.org, uri@w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@ebuilt.com]
> Sent: 16 November, 2001 22:40
> To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere)
> Cc: sean@mysterylights.com; www-talk@w3.org; uri@w3.org
> Subject: Re: What is at the end of the namespace?
> > Are you saying that HTTP URLs are also URNs?
> No, URNs are only those URI that start with a "urn" scheme.  

I disagree.

Yes, I know that the recent "clarification" could be interpreted
to say that, but it doesn't actually *say* that ;-)

The abstract concept of URN is still a valid concept by which
to describe and classify URI schemes, and I intend to submit
I-D proposals for just such a URN scheme that compliments
the 'urn:' scheme. And one could also assert that the 'tag:'
URI scheme is a URN scheme. 

Thus, similarly, one can view PURLs as essentially being URNs
but URNs for which the agency handling the mapping to URL is
defined in the URI itself.
> 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.

And I never said that folks *couldn't* use HTTP URLs as names,
only that they *shouldn't*, because it is IMO unreasonable to presume
that HTTP URLs would have an interpretation not in any way related
to the HTTP protocol.

Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 07:06:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:33:03 UTC