- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 20:36:23 +0900
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- CC: TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
On 2014/04/15 19:43, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > 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. I have just read the draft, and confirmed my impression. Please see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/d3cqXHPqoB3_OG_djbG_sMVEs2o for some initial response. Regards, Martin. P.S.: Yes, the IETF now uses Archived-At! But the mail archive pages that can be reached that way aren't linked at all :-(. > 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 > (http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/). As always when a different > community is involved, terminology is one of the hurdles that has to be > taken. > > 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 <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> >> wrote: >>> Oh boy. I'll try to find some time to review the referenced draft. >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-urns-are-not-uris 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 11:37:06 UTC