- From: Ron Daniel Jr. <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:51:28 -0700
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Daniel LaLiberte <liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
- Cc: touch@isi.edu, uri@bunyip.com
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: > > http://www.foo.com/software/latest-beta.exe 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 http://www.foo.com/whatever a URN since it clearly has a preferred location for resolution. Regards, Ron Daniel Jr. voice:+1 505 665 0597 Advanced Computing Lab fax:+1 505 665 4939 MS B287 email:rdaniel@lanl.gov Los Alamos National Lab http://www.acl.lanl.gov/~rdaniel Los Alamos, NM, USA, 87545
Received on Thursday, 20 February 1997 18:51:50 UTC