- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 10:14:56 -0700
- To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>, "Stephen Cranefield" <SCranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>
- Cc: <uri@w3.org>
>If it were possible to have a URN scheme for >which retrieval was not meaningful (and I still haven't seen any >official document that answers this one way or another) ... I think "retrieval" isn't the right word, since what you do with "mailto" or "tel" isn't "retrieval" (HTTP GET) but some other kind of access/connection. Once you generalize the mechanism-of-connection and you allow 'think about' as a connection method, then of course, there are no URI schemes/URN schemes that don't have a meaningful connection method. (Consider 'tdb' in draft-masinter-dated-uri-00.txt). > Other that what is in RFC 2396, I don't think one can > meaningfully talk about an "IETF notion of a URI". There are a large number of IETF RFCs that describe and constrain URIs besides 2396, and they surely belong in the category of documenting the "IETF notion of a URI". At a minimum, I'd include 1736 and 1737, 2717 and 2718, 2141 and 2611 as well as the many RFCs that define and register schemes and namespaces.
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 13:15:55 UTC