- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:05:42 +0200
- To: fielding@ebuilt.com
- Cc: sean@mysterylights.com, www-talk@w3.org, uri@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@ebuilt.com] > Sent: 16 November, 2001 22:40 > To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere) > Cc: sean@mysterylights.com; www-talk@w3.org; uri@w3.org > Subject: Re: What is at the end of the namespace? > > > > Are you saying that HTTP URLs are also URNs? > > No, URNs are only those URI that start with a "urn" scheme. I disagree. Yes, I know that the recent "clarification" could be interpreted to say that, but it doesn't actually *say* that ;-) The abstract concept of URN is still a valid concept by which to describe and classify URI schemes, and I intend to submit I-D proposals for just such a URN scheme that compliments the 'urn:' scheme. And one could also assert that the 'tag:' URI scheme is a URN scheme. Thus, similarly, one can view PURLs as essentially being URNs but URNs for which the agency handling the mapping to URL is defined in the URI itself. > What I said is > that HTTP URLs are identifiers, and hence names, and > therefore capable of > being a symbolic replacement for any other identifier, including URNs. And I never said that folks *couldn't* use HTTP URLs as names, only that they *shouldn't*, because it is IMO unreasonable to presume that HTTP URLs would have an interpretation not in any way related to the HTTP protocol. Patrick
Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 07:06:52 UTC