RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme

In the old days we would have used URNs and moved on. Unfortunately now
we have the mess that are URI and these philosophical yet meaningless
debates will continually ebb and flow. I'm glad that at least now the
TAG has realized that the discussion isn't productive and even more is
inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. 


-- 
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
Marriage is the only union that has consistently defied management.


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:00 AM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Lilley [mailto:chris@w3.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 11:41 AM
> > To: www-tag@w3.org; Larry Masinter
> > Subject: Re: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme
> > 
> > I thought that was a little crazy, if its Not On the Web then why 
> > specify the protocol that you don't use?
> > 
> > Hence my on-the-fly suggestion for a new protocol, defined to be 
> > non-dereferenceable, for things which are Not On the Web
> > 
> > now://
> 
> Thanks.  I think I understand (and personally agree, think it 
> would have been a great addition to the namespaces spec 4 
> years ago, but do NOT want to pursue it). As best I 
> understand the various responses, everything worth mentioning 
> on the web could be on the Web as an HTTP-referenceable 
> description of that thing.  The TAG itself seems to have 
> determined that the practical value of worrying about this 
> further seems to be negligable.  
> 
> Is that about right?  
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2002 14:28:35 UTC