# Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs...

Simon E Spero (ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu)
Sat, 16 Oct 93 11:56:25 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Simon E Spero: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- Previous message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- In reply to: Mitra: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- Next in thread: Simon E Spero: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."

    Message-Id: <9310161556.AA11501@tipper.oit.unc.edu>

    To: mitra@path.net (Mitra)

    Subject: Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs...

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 16 Oct 93 05:10:49 GMT."

                 <CEz522.2Dz@pandora.sf.ca.us>

    Date: Sat, 16 Oct 93 11:56:25 -0400

    From: Simon E Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>

mitra@path.net (Mitra) writes:
>
>Personally, I think I'd vote the (no URL: yes on UURN:), because I think
>implementation is going to be:

I think this seems to be the general consensus; it doesn't affect the existing
base, allows URNs to be easily recognised, and can easily be generalised for
other resource identifiers.

I therefore wish to propose the following motion to be put before the
working group;
-----------------

This working group notes:

1: The exisiting base of both code and data using URLs as defined.
2: The lack of deployment of URNs
3: The ability of the URL representation to contain an arbritary sequence of
octets.

This working group opposes:

1: The disruption of an existing user base for purely cosmetic reasons

This working group resolves:

1: That the specification for URLs shall not be changed to include a prefix.
2: That URNs shall be encoded in a format identical to that used for URLS,
using the string "urn:" as the access-method specifier.

----------------------

- Next message: Simon E Spero: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- Previous message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- In reply to: Mitra: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- Next in thread: Simon E Spero: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."