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.