From: Martin Hamilton <M.T.Hamilton@lut.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <199310281013.KAA11027@lust.lut.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: options, not nesting?
To: uri@bunyip.com
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 10:13:31 +0000 (GMT)
In-Reply-To: <93Oct27.190431pdt.2795@golden.parc.xerox.com> from "Larry Masinter" at Oct 27, 93 07:04:17 pm
Larry said:
/ Rather than making URNs and URLs and URCs and URMs all different
/ things, one of which contains the other all nested, how about just
/ allowing various information to be optional?
/ [...]
This sounds rather like an IETF resource template, let's say with
references to URNs, URLs, and future URIs being by means of the
fabled "URI:" attribute. Is anyone unhappy with this scenario?
If a search returns a template with URLs in, they may be used
directly to gain access to the resource. URNs would lead to a
template which connects them with URLs.
I think this means the whole URM, URC, ... shebang is rendered
unnecessary, but am willing to be convinced otherwise!
QED? :-)
Martin