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

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Sat, 16 Oct 1993 14:54:14 PDT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- Previous message: Simon E Spero: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- Maybe in reply to: Michael Mealling: "The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- Next in thread: Larry Masinter: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."

    To: uri@bunyip.com

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

    From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>

    Message-Id: <93Oct16.145425pdt.2794@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: 	Sat, 16 Oct 1993 14:54:14 PDT

Mitra wrote:
> Personally, I think I'd vote the (no URL: yes on UURN:), ...

and Simon Spero replied:
> 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.

However, I don't think I agree that the URN: prefix is useful, and
think it can be harmful if you want to add new kinds of naming
authorities.

`Consensus' usually means that everyone agrees.

It seems short-sighted to assume that there will be only one style of
URN; rather, subsuming the ISO object identifiers and ISBN numbers
would be a good start.

- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- Previous message: Simon E Spero: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- Maybe in reply to: Michael Mealling: "The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- Next in thread: Larry Masinter: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."