# Re: URL revision

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@hal.com)
Fri, 22 Jul 1994 09:12:42 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: URL revision"
- Previous message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: URL revision"
- In reply to: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: URL revision"

    Message-Id: <9407221412.AA12840@ulua.hal.com>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: URL revision

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 22 Jul 1994 04:01:28 PDT."

                 <9407220401.aa18204@paris.ics.uci.edu>

    Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 09:12:42 -0500

    From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>

In message <9407220401.aa18204@paris.ics.uci.edu>, "Roy T. Fielding" writes:

Lots of good stuff. Amen to all of it.

>Gordon Irlam <gordoni@home.base.com> writes:
>[In answer to Dan's question regarding the URL: prefix]
>>> Hello? Did I miss it again? WHAT IS THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THIS?
>> 1) Useability.
>
>Usable, yes. Redundant to the point of obfuscation, no.

>> 2) Namespace design.
>
>Again, I disagree. The namespace of a UR* is the access method. Without
>knowledge of it, the UR* may as well be just another word. This is equally
>true of both URLs and URNs, because what comes after the URN: is (supposedly)
>the naming authority. Furthermore, it creates an artificial split
>between name spaces at a time when it has yet to be proven that their
>exists any split between those spaces.

- Next message: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: URL revision"
- Previous message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: URL revision"
- In reply to: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: URL revision"