# Re: options, not nesting?

Martin Hamilton (M.T.Hamilton@lut.ac.uk)
Thu, 28 Oct 1993 10:13:31 +0000 (GMT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Chris Weider: "Data elements and other jazz"
- Previous message: Alan Emtage: "Bunyip Internet Directory Project"
- In reply to: Larry Masinter: "options, not nesting?"
- Next in thread: Michael Mealling: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Reply: Michael Mealling: "Re: options, not nesting?"

    From: Martin Hamilton <M.T.Hamilton@lut.ac.uk>

    Message-Id: <199310281013.KAA11027@lust.lut.ac.uk>

    Subject: Re: options, not nesting?

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 10:13:31 +0000 (GMT)

    In-Reply-To: <93Oct27.190431pdt.2795@golden.parc.xerox.com> from "Larry Masinter" at Oct 27, 93 07:04:17 pm

Larry said:

/ Rather than making URNs and URLs and URCs and URMs all different
/ things, one of which contains the other all nested, how about just
/ allowing various information to be optional?
/ [...]

This sounds rather like an IETF resource template, let's say with
references to URNs, URLs, and future URIs being by means of the
fabled "URI:" attribute. Is anyone unhappy with this scenario?

If a search returns a template with URLs in, they may be used
directly to gain access to the resource. URNs would lead to a
template which connects them with URLs.

I think this means the whole URM, URC, ... shebang is rendered
unnecessary, but am willing to be convinced otherwise!

QED? :-)

Martin

- Next message: Chris Weider: "Data elements and other jazz"
- Previous message: Alan Emtage: "Bunyip Internet Directory Project"
- In reply to: Larry Masinter: "options, not nesting?"
- Next in thread: Michael Mealling: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Reply: Michael Mealling: "Re: options, not nesting?"