Re: [John C Klensin] [apps-discuss] URNs are not URIs (another look at RFC 3986)

I have seen the draft, but haven't yet had time to read it. My cursory 
impression was that it gives a list of requirements, and then a radical 
solution, without in any way explaining how the requirements are tied to 
the solution.

In earlier discussion on the urn mailing list, my impression was that 
all the requirements can be addressed within the current syntax with a 
bit of compromise and engineering. In some aspects, the solutions might 
be similar to the effort of audio/video fragment identifiers 
( As always when a different 
community is involved, terminology is one of the hurdles that has to be 

Just my 2¢ for the moment.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2014/04/15 19:09, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Henry S. Thompson <> wrote:
>> Oh boy.  I'll try to find some time to review the referenced draft.
> for the
> lazy. It basically says nothing other than that URNs would no longer
> be in scope... It does not seem to address what this would mean for
> say, the HTML a element.

Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2014 10:44:33 UTC