Message-Id: <m0puJbP-0004MVC@inca.gate.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 94 07:40 EDT
To: Terry Allen <terry@ora.com>, uri@bunyip.com
From: hoymand@gate.net (Dirk Herr-Hoyman)
Subject: Re: Yet more URI/URC
At 7:37 PM 4/21/94 -0700, Terry Allen wrote:
>| From: mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us (Mitra)
>| Subject: Re: More URIURC
>| Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 23:10:02 GMT
>| Message-Id: <CoMtor.3IE@pandora.sf.ca.us>
>|
>| There is one point that I think we disagree on .. let me see if I can
>| explain it so it gets pulled out as a seperate question?
>| I think (although I dont think my scenario depends on this) that.....
>|
>| a) The publisher controls who it cites as the official URN->URC
>| resolution services for its documents. This is who a simplistic client
>| will use to resolve the URN's to URLs
>
>Well, the publisher can suggest a preferred URN > URC provider,
>and, depending upon how services are bundled, may exert some
>degree of coercion to use this provider. But fundamentally
>this is like saying "Use only genuine GM parts."
>
Doesn't go all the way back to the initial request for a URN server? Isn't
this where the control of what URCs are used is done? How could anyone
else get an alternate URC into the system without being pointed to by that
top level lookup? Is this a bottleneck?
-- Dirk Herr-Hoyman | CyberBeach Publishing | Practice * Internet publishing services | random acts of kindness Lake Worth, Florida, USA | and hoymand@gate.net | senseless beauty +1.407.540.8309 |