Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 11:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Rob Raisch, The Internet Company" <raisch@internet.com>
Subject: Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs...
To: Simon E Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <9310161556.AA11501@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.03.9310161130.D9236-b100000@hmmm.internet.com>
HERE HERE! <raises paw during call for 'AYE' votes)
</rr>
On Sat, 16 Oct 1993, Simon E Spero wrote:
> mitra@path.net (Mitra) 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.
>
> ----------------------