- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 25 Mar 2002 09:25:50 -0600
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Massimo Marchiori <massimo@w3.org>, Lynn Andrea Stein <las@olin.edu>
On Mon, 2002-03-25 at 03:58, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > I was thinking along these lines. > > I don't think we need a special URI scheme more a general purpose pronominal > scheme. > > Look at the eid scheme > > > http://www-old.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/uri/draft-finseth-url-00.txt Eeek! > the web fundamentalists will attack ... Indeed. > it's worth finding out how rough a ride eid had. > > Jeremy > > PS: As an implementator I am certainly game for implementing something along > these lines, and I think a URI scheme is better than extensions of a > well-known URI. I can't see an argument that merits a new URI scheme. Implementors could agree on a common spelling that *isn't* a URI... something like: :ex-uuid:e3l54j63l4ij532l4i5j2l3i4j5 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 25 March 2002 10:26:59 UTC