- From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:34:54 -0500 (EST)
- To: fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu (Roy T. Fielding)
- Cc: michaelm@rwhois.net, uri@bunyip.com, connolly@w3.org, urn-ietf@bunyip.com, timbl@w3.org, masinter@parc.xerox.com, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, moore@cs.utk.edu, lassila@w3.org, swick@w3.org, tbray@textuality.com, jeanpa@microsoft.com, cmsmcq@uic.edu, dsr@w3.org, lehors@w3.org, ij@w3.org
Roy T. Fielding said this: > >> Please note that the "L" in "URL" represents "Locator", not "Location". > >> Any naming scheme that requires there exist some mechanism for resolution, > >> whether or not the mechanism is currently in operation, changes over time, > >> or subject to multiple levels of indirection, is a locator. > > > >URNs never required a mechanism for resolution. > > > >> There do exist names that are not locators, but those names are not URNs. > > > >Actually, unless the documents have changed the design was that the URN > >need not have a resolution method. > > That's what I thought too, until RFC 2141 went up for last call. E.g., > > 7. Functional Equivalence in URNs > > Functional equivalence is determined by practice within a given > namespace and managed by resolvers for that namespeace. > > which in my mind is the same as requiring a resolution method. There is > no value in the "urn" scheme if it doesn't define functional equivalence. > Hmm... then we should have done a better job on that section. The document _should_ have had nothing to say about resolution but I guess it snuck in. I wonder if that's fixable... -MM -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Mealling | 505 Huntmar Park Drive | Phone: (703)742-0400 Software Engineer | Herndon, VA 22070 | Fax: (703)742-9552 Network Solutions | <URL:http://www.netsol.com> | michaelm@rwhois.net
Received on Thursday, 30 October 1997 10:11:51 UTC