- From: Ron Daniel, Jr. <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 10:38:57 -0700
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Patrik Faltstrom <paf@swip.net>
- Cc: uri@bunyip.com, ietf-url@imc.org, urn-ietf@bunyip.com
At 03:13 AM 3/28/97 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: >Patrik Faltstrom wrote: >> A namespace is definitely not the same thing as a URL scheme. >A namespace definitely IS the same thing as a URL scheme. > >I don't have any logical argument, but I can cite the >intent of the designer of URLs: [...] >See also, RFC1630 (informational) Gee Dan, when I read 1630 it says things like: "For existing Internet access protocols, it is necessary in most cases to define the encoding of the access algorithm into something concise enough to be termed address. URIs which refer to objects according to existing protocols are known as "Uniform Resource Locators" (URL)s ..." and "There is currently a drive to define a space of more persistent names than any URLs. These "Uniform Resource Names" are the subject of an IETF working group discussions." (The group he was referring to was URI-WG. They are now being discussed in the more tightly focused URN-WG). Tim drew a pretty clear distinction between address and names. Addresses had a mapping to Internet Protocols, names did not. The URN-WG's charter is based on that distinction, so any followups should drop it from the CC list. 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 Friday, 28 March 1997 12:40:20 UTC