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

Re: specific use of URNs?

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:48:02 -0700
To: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010613084801.B5122@mnot.net>

Jeff et al,

I think that comment may have been misattributed? I don't remember
saying anything about squid... Someone told me it may have been
Michael Mealling?

Cheers,


On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 12:10:38AM -0700, Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2001 11:48:16 UTC

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