- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: 12 Apr 2002 08:27:57 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 22:54, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > The problem is not a protocol to be able to resolve any URI. > The problem is to give something an identifier which can later > be resolved. The appropriate scheme is http. > > Don't use URNs. They don't have a protocol. If you use them, > then we will all have to make a new protocol for URNs. > We will end up reinventing HTTP which IMHO will be a > serious fragmentation of the specification and very detrimental > to the web as a whole. This sounds very much like those of us on xml-dev who have suggested that HTTP URIs by implication are dereferenceable, and therefore should be. That's an argument which has been shouted down a lot over the years. At the same time, it also sounds like you would prefer to treat HTTP as a more-equal-than-others URI, and simply drop the notion of resolving other kinds of URIs. I'm not sure this is exactly progress, but these are exactly the kinds of details of URI processing I'd like to see discussed and well-aired before continuing with an architecture which hangs an enormous amount on URI processing in general. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com
Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 08:22:40 UTC