- From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@Bunyip.Com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 12:27:07 -0500 (EST)
- To: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
- cc: uri@Bunyip.Com, urn-ietf@Bunyip.Com
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Foteos Macrides wrote:
>
> Note also that RFC 1630 had the title "Universal Resource
> Identifiers in WWW", i.e., was about URIs, not just URLs, and
> provides for fragments in URIs. I agree that if URNs are specified
> such that they could not accept fragments as "instructions to the
> client", then they should not be considered URIs, and that would
> be unacceptible (so don't impose that restriction on URNs :).
URIs as a whole have evolved considerably since RFC1630 -- not the least
of which is the fact that they are now "Uniform" and not "Universal"
Resource Identifiers.
My point is this: be careful of claiming that anything that doesn't
fit with the earliest specifications is not valid; that prevents evolution
of design.
Leslie.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"_Be_ Leslie Daigle
where you
_are_." Bunyip Information Systems
(514) 875-8611
-- ThinkingCat leslie@bunyip.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 26 January 1998 13:03:42 UTC