- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 17:15:05 -0500
- To: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
- Cc: uri@w3.org, tony_hammond@harcourt.com
At 01:49 PM 2002-01-02 , Michael Mealling wrote: >On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 01:35:20PM -0500, Al Gilman wrote: >> At 08:47 AM 2001-12-23 , tony_hammond@harcourt.com wrote: >> There are many fictive URIs one can coin using the reserved domain names of >> RFC-2606, such as >> >> <cid:garbageStringOfYourChoice@mail.example.net> and >> <urn:example.org:topic:aspect:nit>. > >Just so we squish these when they come up, that URN is invalid. >URN's are specifically disallowed form having '.' in their namespace ID. >The only allowed characters are A-Z, a-z and '-'. You are strongly >discouraged from using NIDs that even appear to look like domain-names. >IMHO, urn:example:topic:bla would be better.... > Sorry, point taken. Make that <urn:example.invalid:foo:bar:baz>. But we don't want to limit ourselves to broken examples. So building on RFC-2606 is not cool by best URN practice. Is there any "writing of normative record" reserving this use you suggested of 'example' as an NID? Or any other effective alternative? Al >-MM > > > >-- >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- >Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 >michael@neonym.net | | <http://www.neonym.net/>http://www.neonym.net >
Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2002 16:59:49 UTC