# Re: Revision of Chris & Peter's URN paper

Dirk Herr-Hoyman (hoymand@joe.uwex.edu)
Fri, 22 Oct 93 11:36:46 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Bob Deen: "Proposed solution to url: prefix problem"
- Previous message: Dirk Herr-Hoyman: "Re: URN definition -- a way out?"
- Maybe in reply to: Chris Weider: "Revision of Chris & Peter's URN paper"

    Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 11:36:46 -0500

    Message-Id: <9310221636.AA17001@joe.uwex.edu>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    From: hoymand@joe.uwex.edu (Dirk Herr-Hoyman)

    Subject: Re: Revision of Chris & Peter's URN paper

>Is there a compelling reason to have the <> wrapper as *part* of the URN,
>or can it be treated the same as the URL, where it's only used as a plaintext
>wrapper? After all, we should have real consistency between URNs and URLs,
>or why bother breaking everything with the URL: prefix?
>
>Bob Deen @ NASA-JPL Multimission Image Processing Lab
>rgd059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov span: mipl3::rgd059

I concur. Take out the <> as required in URN (do you realize how UGLY the
HTML markup will be?), but use it as delimiters in plaintext (or follow the
URL use, if it changes).

BTW: I am NOT in favor of the URL prefix. I believe it was Mitra that
pointed out that even if you have this, clients will tear into the selector
to figure out the protocol anyways. I would also note that in most cases
the s/w (this is for a resource harvestor) will know that the URL is a URL.
The only place this really matters is plain/free text, and there we are
discussing using the <> wrapper, which makes the URL: prefix redundant.

- Next message: Bob Deen: "Proposed solution to url: prefix problem"
- Previous message: Dirk Herr-Hoyman: "Re: URN definition -- a way out?"
- Maybe in reply to: Chris Weider: "Revision of Chris & Peter's URN paper"