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

Re: Excess URI schemes considered harmful

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:27:36 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
Cc: <uri@w3.org>
At 04:14 PM 9/26/01 +0100, Sean B. Palmer wrote:
> > I tend to think that effective use of urns might, in the
> > longer term, help to limit the profusion of URI schemes.
>So then we'll just have a profusion of URN namespace IDs! It would be quite
>easy to delegate URI schemes in the same way that URN namespaces are
>delegated: perhaps even with an informal URI scheme tree, "uri-1:",
>"uri-2:" etc.

Yup, that's fine.  Because different URN nids don't require different 
handling by software that handles them (unlike different URI schemes, which 
MAY require different handling).

 From TimBL's original posting in this thread:
>The Web depends on a very high shared knowledge of the properties of
>URI schemes. New ones should only be introduced is absolutely necessary.

Here, the different URN nids serve to indicate different name allocation 
authorities, which are significant at the point a particular URN is minted, 
but which thereafter can all be treated alike;  I believe a "very high 
shared knowledge of the properties of" URNs is already present, because 
they don't really have any significant properties other than being unique, 
persistent names.


Graham Klyne
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2001 11:39:20 UTC

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