W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > June 2001

specific use of URNs?

From: <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 00:10:38 -0700
Message-Id: <200106080710.AAA28371@breakaway.Stanford.EDU>
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')?



[1] Future of Uniform Resource Identifiers BOF (furi) 
[50th IETF, Minneapolis MN, Mar-2001]
Received on Friday, 8 June 2001 03:10:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:03 UTC