- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:14:10 -0500
- To: "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, www-tag@w3.org
No. Treat them as a Public ID. That means the local system has to be able to dereference them only if it needs to. If a URN is just a name, then dereferencing is by local scope, a local choice. Otherwise why would you need anything other than a URL? It isn't detrimental to any architecture to enable local choice. len -----Original Message----- From: Tim Berners-Lee [mailto:timbl@w3.org] 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.
Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 09:14:54 UTC