- From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 21:47:36 -0400
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: roxanab@attmail.com, uri@bunyip.com, moore@cs.utk.edu
> The current charter of the URI working group is to define the syntax > structure and semantics of resource identifiers, by the way, and _not_ > to establish standards for protocols. The problem is, the ability to perform resolution efficiently is one of the most important requirements of a URN. (whether this is in the URN requirements doc or not, it is very important in practice.) So while we don't have to argue about the details where which bits go in a resolution protocol, it's meaningless to talk about URNs themselves without considering the resolution mechanism. > I think in the end we will be faced with choices where there is no > good reason to choose one form over another (what is the delimiter > between naming authority and name) and that these will be the hardest > for us to reach because most of the opinions are informed by instincts > that are hard to express (familiarity). I'd like to think that if we get to that point, we'll just flip a coin. But the issues that divide us now are weightier than that. Keith
Received on Thursday, 15 June 1995 21:47:11 UTC