Re: Excess URI schemes considered harmful

> Again, are you sure? The IANA may not be the registry for these items
> in the future. The IANA is simply the organization that the IETF/ISOC
> has contracted with to provide that service now. Depending on the state
> of politics it may not be so in the future.
> IMHO, urn:ietf:params:media-type:text-plain
> is much better....

But what if the IETF cedes control of this registry to some other
body?  Then that URN would break too.  How is this any different
than with an URL?

If, by proposing the use of an IETF URN, you're suggesting that the
IETF is a better authority than IANA, that's fine - I don't know,
maybe it is.  But then I'd suggest that using an
URL would serve exactly the same purpose as that URN, be no more
brittle, *and* be resolvable with a currently deployed protocol.
Win/win, no?


Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 15:59:27 UTC