# Re: options, not nesting?

Ed Krol (e-krol@uiuc.edu)
Thu, 28 Oct 1993 11:50:29 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Michael Mealling: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Previous message: Martin Hamilton: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Maybe in reply to: Larry Masinter: "options, not nesting?"
- Next in thread: Michael Mealling: "Re: options, not nesting?"

    Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 11:50:29 -0500

    Message-Id: <199310281650.AA29374@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>

    To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, uri@bunyip.com

    From: e-krol@uiuc.edu (Ed Krol)

    Subject: Re: options, not nesting?

At 19:04 10/27/93 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote:
>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?

I actually dislike the idea in the case of names and locators
because I don't think it comes onstrongly enough to promote use
of names and to curtail use of locators.

I think they are distinct things with different uses.

I do feel that the other stuff might be an optional part of the
URN.

    ---
    Ed Krol                              Phone: 217 333 7886
    University of Illinois
    1120 DCL
    1304 W. Springfield
    Urbana, IL 61801

- Next message: Michael Mealling: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Previous message: Martin Hamilton: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Maybe in reply to: Larry Masinter: "options, not nesting?"
- Next in thread: Michael Mealling: "Re: options, not nesting?"