- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 14:06:12 PDT
- To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@bunyip.com>
- CC: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, urn-ietf@bunyip.com, Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, timbl@w3.org, fielding@ics.uci.edu, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, uri@bunyip.com, lassila@w3.org, swick@w3.org, tbray@textuality.com, jeanpa@microsoft.com, cmsmcq@uic.edu, dsr@w3.org, lehors@w3.org, ij@w3.org, slein@wrc.xerox.com, jdavis@parc.xerox.com
Some URLs don't accept relative references, e.g., 'cid:' and 'mid:'. Maybe these should be URNs, too, but they're used to locate a resource in a message, not to name it. So it's fuzzy. I think fragment identifiers that are used for *named* fragments are useful in URNs and URLs equally. If fragments were used as locators with some syntax "#bytes:1-47", we'd have more of a problem. Larry -- http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
Received on Friday, 24 October 1997 17:06:53 UTC