- From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:38:20 -0400
- To: abrahams@acm.org
- Cc: michaelm@netsol.com, "'xml-uri@w3.org'" <xml-uri@w3.org>
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 03:20:03PM -0400, Paul W. Abrahams wrote: >Michael Mealling wrote: >>On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 02:35:27PM -0400, Paul W. Abrahams wrote: >>>"Arnold, Curt" wrote: >>>>Isn't that already achievable by using a URI with a protocol of "uuid:" >>>>for the namespace and using the UUID generation algorithms. That could >>> >be a solution for relative URI's that are intended to indicate a document >>>>specific namespace. >>> >>>Where are the UUID generation algorithms described? I couldn't locate a >>>description of UUIDs using the IETF search facility. And as I asked >>>John Cowen about OIDs, can anyone get as many UUIDs as >>>they wish? Can my grandmother get a bushel of them? >> >>Part of hte problem with UUIDs is who's definition you go with as several >>entities have things called UUIDs and/or GUIDs. Microsoft has one >>definition. Guid.org has another. I think ISO has yet another. Some >>use an algorithm that includes your MAC address which raises some >>hairy privacy concerns. >> >>The nice thing about most GUIDs is that they're really just a combination >>of some location, a timestamp, and some hash which make it so that >>you can create an insane amount of them algorithmicly... > >Given the multiple definitions, is there any possibility of overlap, i.e., two >definitions might yield the same GUID? Can you point me at the Microsoft >definition? Most definitly. Some are inherently incompatible. Microsoft's are just a 16 byte number. Others contain alpha-numeric bits. So incompatible that even charater escaping is badly handled. I'd suggest picking one and running with it. The Microsoft one uses the definition that comes from OSF DCE. I looked on the opengroup site but can't find a reference... >And what do you think of the idea that led to this query: using UUID's as >the only non-deprecated form of namespace name? I think its a bit restrictive. I'd personally use the 'urn' scheme but that's just my personal preference. I doubt if the XML Namespace spec needs either level of uniqueness/persistence. Others on this list seem to want someothing that is much easier to generate and only requires the thing to be unique to the XML document. I.e., I know what I want but that doesn't mean I can convince the list of that.... -MM -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | www.rwhois.net/michael Sr. Research Engineer | www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett | ICQ#: 14198821 Network Solutions | www.lp.org | michaelm@netsol.com
Received on Friday, 26 May 2000 15:49:27 UTC