RE: URN duri and tdb spec updated

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] 
> On Behalf Of Larry Masinter
> Sent: 04 February 2009 04:06
> To: danbri@danbri.org; www-tag@w3.org; uri@w3.org; 'Harry Halpin'
> Cc: urn-nid@ietf.org
> Subject: URN duri and tdb spec updated
> 
> 
> ((Please follow up only on uri@w3.org (DO NOT REPLY ALL)))
> 
> By recent popular demand, I updated (slightly)
> 
>          http://larry.masinter.net/duri.html (and .txt and .xml)
> and submitted it to the internet-drafts repository as
>                
>            draft-masinter-dated-uri-05.txt.
> 
> The only substantial change I made since the 2004 draft was to change the
> interpretation of the date from "first instant" to "last instant", based on
> a comment by Al Gilman in 2004.
> 
> Replies to recent comments:

<snip/>
> ========
> Stuart Williams wrote:
> >  ..  something of a year 10K (or maybe 100K) problem 
> 
> The reference to RFC 2550 hints at how to solve that problem.

A marvellous and nicely dated work! :-) You don't actually say that duri/tdb adopt the strategy described therein, and I suppose there's approx 8k year available in which to make appropriate revision.

I'll desist and be grateful I'm likely to have to ever deal with duri/tdb with embedded dates with a year date >(10^4)-1.

<snip/>
> 
> Larry
> -- 
> http://larry.masinter.net

Stuart
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 11:04:11 UTC