Date: Sat, 16 Oct 93 13:12:36 -0700
From: marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen)
Message-Id: <9310162012.AA06115@wintermute.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
To: Simon E Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs...
In-Reply-To: <9310161556.AA11501@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
<CEz522.2Dz@pandora.sf.ca.us>
Simon E Spero writes:
> >Personally, I think I'd vote the (no URL: yes on UURN:), because I think
> >implementation is going to be:
>
> 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.
>
> I therefore wish to propose the following motion to be put before the
> working group;
> -----------------
>
> This working group notes:
>
> 1: The exisiting base of both code and data using URLs as defined.
> 2: The lack of deployment of URNs
> 3: The ability of the URL representation to contain an arbritary sequence of
> octets.
>
> This working group opposes:
>
> 1: The disruption of an existing user base for purely cosmetic reasons
>
> This working group resolves:
>
> 1: That the specification for URLs shall not be changed to include a prefix.
> 2: That URNs shall be encoded in a format identical to that used for URLS,
> using the string "urn:" as the access-method specifier.
Aye!
Bless you, O North Carolina-based one...
Marc