# Re: URC spec

Michael Mealling (Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu)
Tue, 13 Jun 1995 09:36:34 -0400 (EDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Ron Daniel Jr.: "Re: URC spec"
- Previous message: Michael Shapiro: "Re: URC spec"
- In reply to: Michael Shapiro: "Re: URC spec"

    From: Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu (Michael Mealling)

    Message-Id: <199506131336.JAA26241@oit.gatech.edu>

    Subject: Re: URC spec

    To: mshapiro@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Michael Shapiro)

    Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 09:36:34 -0400 (EDT)

    In-Reply-To: <9506130403.AA19416@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu> from "Michael Shapiro" at Jun 12, 95 11:03:36 pm

Michael Shapiro said this:
> There is an implied assumption in the SGML-based URC
> specifiction that URNs resolve to URCs. I think that this is a
> fundamental mistake. URNs should not be required to resolve to
> URCs. They should be allowed to resolve to any resource.

But you will also notice that Ron has several different types of
URC syntax. In this case we could just as easily state a reverseal
of the above: Anything that is returned during the resolution of
a URN can be considered a URC.

A URL all by itself is just a very small URC. A null string is
just a null URC.

Its just semantics....

-MM

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Life is a game. Someone wins and someone loses. Get used to it.
    <BR>
    <HR><A HREF="http://www.gatech.edu/michael.html">Michael Mealling</A>

- Next message: Ron Daniel Jr.: "Re: URC spec"
- Previous message: Michael Shapiro: "Re: URC spec"
- In reply to: Michael Shapiro: "Re: URC spec"