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

> 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.
]]] -

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.
]]] -

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classical view is still so dominant even though it is out-of-date.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 : <> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <> .

Received on Monday, 24 September 2001 11:30:08 UTC