W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 1995

Re: mid and cid URLs -- Consensus!

From: Al Gilman <asg@severn.wash.inmet.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 16:24:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <9511222124.AA21131@severn.wash.inmet.com>
To: moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore)
Cc: asg@severn.wash.inmet.com, moore@cs.utk.edu, ietf-types@uninett.no, uri@bunyip.com
To follow up on what Keith Moore said ...
  
  Perhaps it's best to think of it this way:
  
  1. content-ids and message-ids aren't URLs.

Yes.
  
  2. notwithstanding #1, it may be useful to extend the URL notation to
  allow references to content-ids and/or message-ids.

Yes.
  
  (they aren't necessarily URNs, either...though they have some of the
  desirable characteristics of URNs, and they might someday be
  incorporated into a URN name space.)
  
Well, almost consensus.  They meet Roy's semantic test.  I kept
referring to URI language because I had just read RFC 1808 on
relative URLs and the generic syntax there is talked about as a
generic URI syntax.  That's where I picked that up.  I am not
presuming that URN status would change the syntax one whit.  It
is a difference in what you expect from the citation.  The rabbit
out of the hat trick I was trying to pull was to call the mid:
scheme by the ambiguous "URI" term to get it through standardization,
and then after the fact come back and say "Poof! You already _have_
an example of a URN scheme!"

Issues:

1. the minor matter of the punctuation in:

  scheme-name: "message-unique@path-to-host" punctuation
	"part-unique@blah-blah-blah"

  punctuation ::= # | ? | /		; Resolve at meeting

2. I wanted to turn on header encoding in parameters, thus:

(after the above)
  *( ; header-name=header-value-phrase )

  header-name				; per RFC 822
  header-value-phrase			; per RFC 822 quoted and escaped asreq.

Is good for legacy multi-mode, multi-server objects like FAQs.
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 1995 16:25:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:32 UTC