- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:04:44 -0500 (EST)
- To: patrick.stickler@nokia.com (Patrick Stickler)
- Cc: urn-ietf@lists.netsol.com (URN), uri@w3.org (URI)
> The whole point IMO of URI schemes is to be able to capture > the common semantics and intended application of sets of > identifiers in a consistent and efficient manner. That's true, but it doesn't mean that the only way to communicate that sort of information is with a new URI scheme. The most general model would be to assume an opaque URI scheme, and then build up from there, no? What should one do when they need to make these same kinds of assertions about an existing URI scheme that doesn't already support them (perhaps because it's opaque)? For example, what if the owner of example.org wants to assert that http://example.org/foo/bar implies the existence of http://example.org/foo and http://example.org/? MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 09:03:27 UTC