- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:28:35 +0100
- 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between the contemporary and classical views, and why the classical view is still so dominant even though it is out-of-date.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! Cheers, -- 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