- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 07:23:38 -0700
- To: "Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>
- Cc: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@apache.org>, Dan Kohn <dan@dankohn.com>, uri@w3.org
Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) wrote:
> 2. Sect 1.1.3. Glad to see that the URL/URN deprecations have been dropped -
> not that I'm against (far from it) just that I do think equal weight should
> be given to both terms URL and URN. Thus I wonder if it's striclty correct
> to imply that the term URN refers to 'urn' URIs only, and whether some
> alternate wording could be used to say that URN refers to 'the subset of
> URIs that provide a persistent means of naming a resource'
Please don't. There is no consensus in the community as to how
persistence is to be achieved (for example some people believe that this
is achieved by using the 'urn:' scheme, others think that persistence is
a matter of management and practice). I think the usage that URN means
"urn:" is in fact common in the community, why fight it. Agreed that
(as Tony points out) this is perhaps a bit unfair, but it's not actually
pernicious.
--
Cheers, Tim Bray
(ongoing fragmented essay: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2003 10:23:40 UTC