- From: <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 00:10:38 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- cc: uri@w3.org
mnot@mnot.net said in the minutes of the FURI BOF [1]: > Mark Nottingham: At the time URNs were looked at in squid, > registration had not been approved. There are documents that need to be > read before saying URNs don't work. They work for me, I'm releasing a > product in mid May. Mark -- w.r.t. the above quote -- can you (now) describe how "the product" uses URNs? Is it using ad-hoc, informal, or formal URN Namespace Identifier(s)? How is it making use of and leveraging URNs? What is it about the resources/artifacts being identified via the URNs that makes URNs more applicable than say using a URL-style URI (i.e. an existing URI "scheme"), or inventing a new URI scheme (having different semantics than URNs')? thanks, JeffH [1] Future of Uniform Resource Identifiers BOF (furi) [50th IETF, Minneapolis MN, Mar-2001] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01mar/ietf50-39.htm#TopOfPage
Received on Friday, 8 June 2001 03:10:48 UTC