- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 08:57:23 -0800
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- cc: uri@bunyip.com, urn-ietf@bunyip.com
>If we attempted to remove any indication that the URI document did >anything more than specify the syntax of URIs and how that syntax >should be processed by URI-processing software, with any semantic >interpretation of the *meaning*, do you think we could get beyond >the current impasse? It depends on what would be removed. I don't want to remove any information which has been proven necessary for people implementing parsers in URI-enabled applications. That covers just about everything in the current document, since we already went through 12 iterations of removing things that were not needed and adding those that people have requested. If the URN group does not want fragments to be in the syntax, then a URN is not a URI. I don't think there is even a tiny bit of logic to support the conclusion that a URN would not use fragments, but I can't stop people from shooting themselves in the foot. Stripping the URL specification such that it is as meaningless as the URN specification is not an option --- we know what is and is not generic syntax and semantics simply by looking at the parsers which implement these things in current practice. If a URN is not a URI, then we should define the URL specification to represent the complete scope of locators, and simply ignore URN. ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 1998 12:12:59 UTC