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

Re: URIs, URLs, and URNs: Clarifications and Recommendations 1.0

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:28:35 +0100
Message-ID: <003801c1450d$9da656a0$3c6c9eac@y0r1d9>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <uri@w3.org>
> URIs, URLs, and URNs: Clarifications and
> Recommendations 1.0

URI schemes in alternative trees will be distinguished because they will
have a "." in the scheme name.
]]] - http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/

Not according to RFC 2717:-

   [...] Scheme names
   in the new tree are then constructed by prepending the prefix to an
   identifier unique to each scheme in that tree, as prescribed by that
   tree's identifying document:

      <prefix>'-'<tree-specific identifier>

   For instance, the "foo" tree would allow creation of scheme names of
   the form: "foo-blahblah:" and "foo-bar:", where the tree prescribes
   an arbitrary USASCII string following the tree's unique prefix.
]]] - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2717.txt

So that's an error, unless the above RFC has been obsoleted, or something.

Otherwise, it's a very good note. It addresses and competently explains the
difference between the contemporary and classical views, and why the
classical view is still so dominant even though it is out-of-date.
Hopefully, it will be the first in a series of documents that address the
series of questions that people have about URIs, and clear up any
misunderstandings that may remain. Good work, guys!


Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Monday, 24 September 2001 11:30:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:39 UTC