Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs

Leslie Daigle (leslie@Bunyip.Com)
Fri, 24 Oct 1997 16:53:14 -0400 (EDT)


Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 16:53:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@Bunyip.Com>
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
cc: urn-ietf@bunyip.com, Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>,
Subject: Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs 
In-Reply-To: <199710241917.PAA00640@spot.cs.utk.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.971024164622.4752Q-100000@beethoven.bunyip.com>


On the subject of "URNs are URLs", 

On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, Keith Moore wrote:
> While I agree that this is one way to name something,
> it doesn't fit with the *definition* of URNs, which
> says that they're location-independent.
> 
> Again, it doesn't matter to the average Joe, but it does 
> matter to an expert.

It is also the case, for example,  that URLs can be relative, and have 
fragment identifiers applied to them (e.g., http://whatever.com/someURL#frag1). 
It hasn't yet been conclusively demonstrated that these concepts roll over
reasonably into URNs, so it would be detrimental to simply sweep URNs
under the URL umbrella, no matter what it did for the terminology.  

URNs _are_ not URLs; I think it's only important that developers continue
to understand that, although it really should not ever matter to the 
average Joe, as Keith says.

Leslie. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  "_Be_                                           Leslie Daigle
             where  you                           
                          _are_."                 Bunyip Information Systems
                                                  (514) 875-8611
                      -- ThinkingCat              leslie@bunyip.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------