- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 16:56:20 -0700
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- CC: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Paul Prescod wrote: > >... > > The point of view that Micah expresses is very common. I've made more or > less the "now:" proposal on a variety of occasions, to the point of > starting to register a URN namespace. Sorry, looking back through the thread, I see that Micah did mean for "now" to be essentially dereferencerable by changing the "now:" to "http:", which makes it different than a URN. I was looking at the wrong message for his proposal. Nevertheless, I hope I did answer this part of your message: > Maybe a "now://" is functionally the same as a urn:// and all the > problems with URNs re-emerge (I dunno, because I never understood the > argument against using URNs to name abstractions ...) If "now:" is really dereferencable through a string-rewriting then it is really more like "http:.../#" than like "urn:". I expect that Roy Fielding will have the same complaints about the former that he does about the latter: that it is unnecessary because Web URIs can already represent abstract things. Paul Prescod
Received on Sunday, 6 October 2002 19:56:55 UTC