- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 21:27:58 +0100
- To: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
- Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, robla@real.com, uri@w3.org
At 12:32 PM 9/25/01 -0400, Michael Mealling wrote: >Are you sure it suffices? The IANA is no longer at that site and that >URL will sease to function soon. If you want a permanent URI for that >concept take a look at these two documents: > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mealling-iana-urn-01.txt > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klyne-urn-ietf-lang-00.txt >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klyne-urn-ietf-conneg-00.txt >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klyne-urn-ietf-rfc822-00.txt > >the last one being the one you want... Er, actually, the last one provides a URI identifer for the "Content-type" amnd other message headers, but doesn't provide URIs for Content-type values -- this proposal is aimed at being able to convey message metadata in formats like RDF. For an example of anticipated use, see http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klyne-message-rfc822-xml-02.txt. However, this does illustrate the basic idea: values in an existing registry or framework of definition can be mapped into URI space; it would be easy enough to do this for basic Content-type values. (However, I understand that there are some additional requirements that the cturi proposal aims to solve. I don't see changing the URI scheme name to something that is part of an existing scheme would be an insuperable problem.) #g ------------ Graham Klyne GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 17:13:45 UTC