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

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 
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
> ( 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 <>
>> 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 11:37:06 UTC