Re: Simple comparison of URNs

Terry Allen (terry@ora.com)
Mon, 26 Jun 1995 07:43:17 -0700


From: "Terry Allen" <terry@ora.com>
Message-Id: <9506260743.ZM28806@dmg.west.ora.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 07:43:17 -0700
In-Reply-To: liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Daniel LaLiberte)
To: liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Daniel LaLiberte), uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Re: Simple comparison of URNs

>Is there
sufficient advantage for the constraint that a resource have only one
name per naming scheme?  Tools (such as browsers and caches) should be
made to work with the knowledge that resources do not necessarily have
a single name, by perhaps remembering the canonical name for a
resource in addition to its alternative names.

You can't ensure that a resource will be given only one URN per
naming scheme, so it is pointless to require it.  The "canonical name"
mentioned would have to be ... just exactly a URN, so that's no out.

Comparisons are presumably to be made on (what it is hoped are)
different, um, encodings(?) of the same URN.

Regards,

-- 
Terry Allen  (terry@ora.com)   O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
Editor, Digital Media Group    101 Morris St.
			       Sebastopol, Calif., 95472

A Davenport Group sponsor.  For information on the Davenport 
  Group see ftp://ftp.ora.com/pub/davenport/README.html
	or  http://www.ora.com/davenport/README.html