- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:35:38 -0800
- To: michael@refactored-networks.com
- Cc: W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
On Mar 15, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Michael Mealling wrote: > Which is one of the conclusions we came to in RFC 3305[1]. Yes, > attempting to create 'classes' of URIs was a bad idea in hindsight. But > there is still value in URNs as simply another URI scheme that has > features to it that other schemes don't. Which would be marginally okay if any such features existed, but there is absolutely nothing other than the syntax left in common among URN naming authorities. Several of the URN naming authorities don't even comply with the URN requirements (uuid and isbn both allow reuse of names for different resources). The only thing that URN accomplished was a delayed deployment of new schemes. Cheers, Roy T. Fielding <http://roy.gbiv.com/> Chief Scientist, Day Software <http://www.day.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2005 19:35:27 UTC