- From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 14:17:13 -0500
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- cc: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, timbl@w3.org, fielding@ics.uci.edu, moore@cs.utk.edu, 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
> As it stands, I'd just as soon see URN schemes in the same > registry as URL schemes (no conflicts allowed), and just annoted > as to whether the scheme implies URN-ness. This much would be reasonable, if only to avoid confusion. > I'd also like to > see "urn:" turned into a more universal URL prefix, e.g., > allow "urn:http://www.purl.org/blah" as a means of indicating > "I intend this usage of http://www.purl.org/blah to be treated > as a permanent name rather than as just the current location". This is a rathole. Let's not go there. So, back to the question of what to call the resource identifiers that appear in HTTP. I'd say there are two choices: 1. Say: these may be either URNs or URLs. Cite appropriate documents for each category. 2. Say: these are URIs, where URIs can be URNs or URLs, and other kinds of URIs as might be defined later by IETF or W3C. Cite appropriate documents for URNs and URLs. Either one seems easy to me. Or did I miss something? Keith
Received on Sunday, 26 October 1997 14:17:52 UTC