- From: Terry Allen <tallen@fsc.fujitsu.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 14:16:45 -0800 (PST)
- To: cbullard@hiwaay.net, eliot@isogen.com
- Cc: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
Len writes:
Also note, at this time, URN definitions
conflict with URL definitions (per Roy Fielding's post to
uri.bunyip). Prepending the prefix appears to be illegal.
Someone more familiar with theseissues should investigate if
this has implications for use of URNs and FPIs in XML.
As I understand it, there are some minor issues in aligning
URN and URL syntax. Roy has objected to URN:, but the URN WG
was overwhelmingly in favor of requiring it at the San Jose
meeting, and it was pointed out that if URL: had been required
much fuss could have been avoided. So this is an exercise in
standards alignment rather than some deep problem (URLs and
URNs don't have to share a syntax, but to the extent they
do, so much the better).
The implication for XML is only that the syntax of a URN in
XML should be whatever the final URN syntax draft says it is.
And that the dust hasn't settled quite yet.
Regards,
Terry Allen Fujitsu Software Corp. tallen@fsc.fujitsu.com
"In going on with these experiments, how many pretty systems do we build,
which we soon find outselves obliged to destroy?" - Benjamin Franklin
A Davenport Group Sponsor: http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html
Received on Saturday, 28 December 1996 17:18:20 UTC