Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new "protocols" ?)

At 04:31 PM 2/20/97 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
>For example, I notice that Ron Daniel's proposes[1] some mechanisms
>for URN resolution. Funny enough: they work just fine on
>strings like:

That's why the title of the draft talks about resolving URIs, not URNs. :-)

>Personally, I caved in a while ago: the community refers
>to these things as URLs (as in "hurl me an url, dude!"),
>so I call them URLs almost all
>the time. I don't feel that having two or three terms
>(URI, URN) which differ only in their connotations, rather
>than in the technical mechanisms and uses, is useful at all.

Well, there is at least one place where I think a useful technical
distinction can be made. URNs are to be location-independent. Not
only is the notion of a "location-independent locator" a bit
tortured, I would have a hard time calling
a URN since it clearly has a preferred location for resolution.


Ron Daniel Jr.              voice:+1 505 665 0597
Advanced Computing Lab        fax:+1 505 665 4939
MS B287           
Los Alamos National Lab
Los Alamos, NM, USA, 87545  

Received on Thursday, 20 February 1997 18:51:50 UTC