Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 11:36:46 -0500
Message-Id: <9310221636.AA17001@joe.uwex.edu>
To: uri@bunyip.com
From: hoymand@joe.uwex.edu (Dirk Herr-Hoyman)
Subject: Re: Revision of Chris & Peter's URN paper
>Is there a compelling reason to have the <> wrapper as *part* of the URN,
>or can it be treated the same as the URL, where it's only used as a plaintext
>wrapper? After all, we should have real consistency between URNs and URLs,
>or why bother breaking everything with the URL: prefix?
>
>Bob Deen @ NASA-JPL Multimission Image Processing Lab
>rgd059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov span: mipl3::rgd059
I concur. Take out the <> as required in URN (do you realize how UGLY the
HTML markup will be?), but use it as delimiters in plaintext (or follow the
URL use, if it changes).
BTW: I am NOT in favor of the URL prefix. I believe it was Mitra that
pointed out that even if you have this, clients will tear into the selector
to figure out the protocol anyways. I would also note that in most cases
the s/w (this is for a resource harvestor) will know that the URL is a URL.
The only place this really matters is plain/free text, and there we are
discussing using the <> wrapper, which makes the URL: prefix redundant.