- From: Daniel LaLiberte <liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 09:59:50 -0600 (CST)
- To: Ryan Moats <jayhawk@ds.internic.net>
- Cc: uri@bunyip.com, urn-ietf@bunyip.com
Ryan Moats writes: > However, in the latest draft URN syntax spec (circulating on the urn > mailing list), the syntax for a URN is > > > "urn:" <NID> ":" <NSS> > > I don't beleive that the URN specification "can be used in any data > field that might otherwise hold a URL" as it currently stands (If > somebody thinks otherwise, please let me know). I think otherwise. I don't see anything wrong with this syntax - consider that the scheme name for this whole class of URNs is called "urn", and thus "urn:" preceeds the rest of the identifier. You were not specific about what the nature of the conflict is. If "urn:" were optional (which is a subject still open for debate, I presume), we may have a conflict. The general URI syntax allows the "<scheme name>:" prefix to be optional, and more of the prefix can be left out, but then we might have a relative URI, which has different semantics. With no "urn:", the <NID> would actually function as the scheme name since it indicates how to interpret the <NSS>. But this is true even with a required "urn:" prefix since we want URNs to be independent of the resolution mechanism. I'm not clear whether you believe URNs *should* be used in any data field that might otherwise hold a URL, independent of whether they in fact can. I believe they should. -- Daniel LaLiberte (liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu) National Center for Supercomputing Applications http://union.ncsa.uiuc.edu/~liberte/
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 1996 11:05:06 UTC