> > 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 ;-) Hmm... you're right. That's a bit of a faux pas. The spirit of the contemporary view is that the distinction between the taxonomies is melting away into something a little more grounded by ten years of Web implementation. Really, we need an awful lot more documents like uri-clarification [1]. It was a fair start, and there are a lot of questions to be addressed, but I don't think that it has gone any way to resolving discussions such as this one before they start. I'm not even 100% sure what the statuses are of the groups at the W3C and IETF charted to deal with this. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/ -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 10:55:38 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:38:45 GMT