To: uri@bunyip.com
Subject: URN syntax acceptability
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <94Oct25.142531pdt.2760@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 14:25:25 PDT
While it is true that the URN requirement document placed no
'compatility with URL' constraints on the syntax of URNs, it might not
be unreasonable to ask that there be some consistency.
However, I'm struck with the idea that what Mitra, Chris and Mike have
proposed in <URL:http://www.path.net/mitra/urn.html>:
* may not satisfy the requirements for URNs
* is quite satisfactory as a new kind of URL.
It's a kind of URL for which 'resolution' requires going indirectly to
other URLs. This is not unlike the prospero scheme.
Am I totally out of line?