Internet Info 1997 December/Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso/ietf/urn/urn-archives/urn-ietf.archive.9612/000023_owner-urn-ietf _Wed Dec 18 19:27:19 1996.msg

Internet Message Format | 1997-02-19 | 2KB

Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id TAA18792 for urn-ietf-out; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 19:27:19 -0500
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA18787 for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 19:27:17 -0500
Received: from rlg.org by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b)
        id AA06740  (mail destined for [e-mail]); Wed, 18 Dec 96 19:27:12 -0500
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date:     Wed, 18 Dec 96 16:27:02 PST
From: "Michael Carroll" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  Re: [URN] Potential inconsistency between URL and URN syntaxes...
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Michael Carroll" <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]

It might be better for us to describe the current task as specifying
*a* syntax for URNs, rather than *the* syntax for URNs.  This would
clearly suggest the possibility that there will be other syntaxes
later.  The other syntaxes may use characters from nonroman
character sets; perhaps mappings will be specified from one syntax
to another.

If we look at it this way, I think it's not even desirable that all
syntaxes for URNs comply with requirements on "the" (existing)
syntax for URLs.  It's just desirable that the first URN syntax
comply.  I don't know of anything that breaks if it doesn't.  I
agree "now is a logical time" to separate these things out.

Michael
--
  Michael Carroll
  Research Libraries Group
  [e-mail]

To:  [e-mail]