# Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable

Karen R. Sollins (sollins@lcs.mit.edu)
Wed, 26 Oct 1994 21:20:52 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Previous message: Alan Emtage: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- In reply to: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Next in thread: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Current URN syntax"
- Reply: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Current URN syntax"

    Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 21:20:52 -0400

    Message-Id: <199410270120.VAA03944@lysithea.lcs.mit.edu>

    From: "Karen R. Sollins" <sollins@lcs.mit.edu>

    To: fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU

    In-Reply-To: <9410252358.aa20034@paris.ics.uci.edu> (fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU)

    Subject: Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 23:58:01 -0700
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>

...text omitted for brevity

That is not what ":" suggests to me. "name:" suggests "what follows is
a name". "urn:" makes sense (though I think it is redundant, just as
URL: was redundant for URLs). "dns:" makes sense, providing that everything
following it remains in the DNS naming scheme. "path.net:" makes no
sense. And what happens when the opaque name contains a ":"?

Once we have decided on a syntax and any other constraints on URNs, if
there is any chance that the same string might be recognized as a URN
and a URL, we had better label it with something that indicates which
it is. Once one has to do this for a single string, one should do it
for all. I don't think we are talking about excluding the possibility
of overlap in namespaces. Since I believe consensus has been reached
in the group about not including "url:" in all urls, we will probably
discover that we must put "urn:" in urns.

...remainder deleted
Karen Sollins

- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Previous message: Alan Emtage: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- In reply to: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Next in thread: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Current URN syntax"
- Reply: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Current URN syntax"