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

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Fri, 24 Oct 1997 14:06:12 PDT


Message-ID: <34510DC4.3FC4CA89@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 14:06:12 PDT
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@bunyip.com>
CC: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, urn-ietf@bunyip.com,
Subject: Re: [URN] Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs

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