Re: URC spec

Michael Mealling (Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu)
Tue, 13 Jun 1995 09:36:34 -0400 (EDT)


From: Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu (Michael Mealling)
Message-Id: <199506131336.JAA26241@oit.gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: URC spec
To: mshapiro@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Michael Shapiro)
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 09:36:34 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: uri@bunyip.com
In-Reply-To: <9506130403.AA19416@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu> from "Michael Shapiro" at Jun 12, 95 11:03:36 pm

Michael Shapiro said this:
>    There  is  an  implied  assumption  in  the   SGML-based   URC
> specifiction  that  URNs  resolve to URCs. I think that this is a
> fundamental mistake.  URNs should not be required to  resolve  to
> URCs. They should be allowed to resolve to any resource.

But you will also notice that Ron has several different types of 
URC syntax. In this case we could just as easily state a reverseal
of the above: Anything that is returned during the resolution of
a URN can be considered a URC. 

A URL all by itself is just a very small URC. A null string is
just a null URC.

Its just semantics....

-MM

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is a game. Someone wins and someone loses. Get used to it.
<BR>
<HR><A HREF="http://www.gatech.edu/michael.html">Michael Mealling</A>