# Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable

Dave Brennan (brennan@hal.com)
Tue, 25 Oct 94 1:29:09 CDT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Patrik Faltstrom: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"
- Previous message: Rich Salz: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"
- In reply to: Norbert Leser - OSF DCE:: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Next in thread: Norbert Leser - OSF DCE:: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Reply: Norbert Leser - OSF DCE:: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Reply: Karen R. Sollins: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"

    From: brennan@hal.com (Dave Brennan)

    Message-Id: <9410250629.AA17292@hysteria.hal.com>

    Subject: Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Date: Tue, 25 Oct 94 1:29:09 CDT

    In-Reply-To: <199410241854.OAA03368@postman.osf.org>; from "Norbert Leser - OSF DCE:" at Oct 24, 94 2:53 pm

I pretty much agree with Norbert's points, except for the following:

> For the purpose of simple name comparison only, instances (such as
> client interpreters) that don't have the naming authority's knowledge,
> case matching is insensitive and white spaces are not significant.

Why does it need to be case insensitive? If the string is opaque,
then so be it. Why can't a client just do a straight comparison?

    --
    Dave Brennan                         HaL Software Systems
    brennan@hal.com                      Austin, TX, USA

- Next message: Patrik Faltstrom: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"
- Previous message: Rich Salz: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"
- In reply to: Norbert Leser - OSF DCE:: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Next in thread: Norbert Leser - OSF DCE:: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Reply: Norbert Leser - OSF DCE:: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Reply: Karen R. Sollins: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"