Message-Id: <9310142250.AA13164@expresso.bunyip.com>
From: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 18:50:18 -0400
In-Reply-To: Simon E Spero's message as of Oct 8, 16:54
To: Simon E Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>, "Chris Weider" <clw@merit.edu>
Subject: Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs...
For those who haven't seen it elsewhere, I apologize for
not participating in the email threads of late. Alan and I
have been on the road for business and are still digging
out.
[ Simon wrote: ]
> One idea that I've been wondering about, and can't remember if we discussed
> or not was making a URN have the same syntax as a URL (e.g. have a special
> URL type, URN, and having a URN be <URN://AUTHORITY:PUBLISHER::NUMBER>
God forbid that we should preserve that ridiculous and
unnecessary double-/ syntax in the URNs as well! I don't
object to making it optional to avoid breaking previous
code, but it's such a blatant hack that it really offends
my sense of artistic balance no end... :-(
Having vented my spleen on such a minor topic, my vote on
the topic of consistent wrapping would be to make the
<UR*:[opaque string] > format the standard for the whole
family.
I think would be a real win in the long-term development
of this stuff.
- peterd
--