RE: URNs, Namespaces and Registries

I think http://xri.net identifiers instead of xri:// would be absolutely
wonderful.  

I had hoped that the finding, particularly section 5, would show that
http://xri.net identifiers have same or better value than xri://
identifiers.  Do you think we should provide more detail to suggest
using http://myri.org identifers?

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] 
> On Behalf Of Schleiff, Marty
> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 10:43 PM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: URNs, Namespaces and Registries
> 
> 
<snip/>
> As you can probably tell, I'm not as opposed as I used to be 
> about using
> http: for XRIs. In earlier discussions and examples I kept 
> hearing that there is no need for XRI because everything can 
> be done with http, but none of the examples were satisfying 
> to me (or others on the OASIS XRI TC). Now I'm hearing that 
> one way to do what XRI does in http is to just use something 
> like "http://xri.net" instead of "xri://" and keep all the 
> functionality specified for "<rest_of_XRI>". Such an approach 
> is much less distasteful to me than saying there is no need 
> for XRI because everything can be done in http. Can TAG 
> members please clarify if their gripes about XRI would 
> dissolve if XRIs begin with "http://xri.net"
> instead of "xri://"?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Aug/0037.html
> [2] http://dbooth.org/2006/urn2http/
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Aug/0024.html
> 
> 
> Marty.Schleiff
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 14 August 2006 18:52:00 UTC