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

Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Fri, 21 Feb 1997 01:40:06 -0600


Message-Id: <330D5156.45CA1496@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 01:40:06 -0600
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
To: "Ron Daniel Jr." <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>
Cc: Daniel LaLiberte <liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu>, touch@isi.edu, uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new "protocols" ?)

Ron Daniel Jr. wrote:

> 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.

OK, I'll bite: how is it that "location-dependent" vs.
"location-independent" is a technical distinction?
What mechanism depends on or uses the distinction in
any way? What's the test for "location dependent"?

For 20 points: tell me the location of http://www.w3.org/.

The evidence you give -- that you would have a hard time calling
it a URN -- is exactly the sort of _non-technical_ difference
in perspective that I'm talking about.

Dan