Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:13:25 +0100 (MET) From: "Martin J. Duerst" <email@example.com> To: Towsner <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Larry Masinter <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Subject: Re: [URN] Checksums in URNs In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961220140805.245D-100000@enoshima> On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Towsner wrote: > >Checksums and other kinds of decorations can be done outside the > >URL. Think of it as a metascheme: > > ck:<checksum><url> > > e.g. ck:A3Bd:http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter >=20 > =09I like the idea of having the checksum be optional, as a > meta-scheme. Same for me. >I also think the checksum should be limited to alpha-numeric > characters, to avoid confusion. What do you mean by "limited to alpha-numeric characters"? Can you be more precise. >Perhaps this should be part of the URL > scheme as well. If it is a metascheme, then it is a new URI scheme. It doesn't have to be discussed either in URL nor in URN syntax. It would go into a separate draft. It has to make sure, on its own, that it is compatible with the URL/URN syntax. Perhaps the URL syntax draft, where it speaks about URIs, could be generalized in the direction of metaschemes. From=20the syntax viewpoint, we already have two metaschemes (urn: and ck:), which can even be combined together, as ck:urn:namespace:NSS. Regards,=09Martin.