Re: URI references and aggregation

At 10:57 00/01/11 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> I'm going to respond to your points here, partly in the hope of provoking a 
> response that improves my understanding.  But you may notice from my other 
> response that I had slightly mistaken the division between URNs and URLs, 
> so my proposals are somewhat moot.
> 
> At 09:05 AM 1/11/00 +0900, Martin J. Duerst wrote:
> >Just some very short points:
> >
> >- Unsing urn namespaces to solve problems of conneg syntax seems
> >   not a good idea.
> 
> OK -- I see URNs are not enough.  But should they be excluded from a solution?

Not at all. Say URI, reference RFC 2396, and they are included.

> >- Restricting each class to a single urn namespace seems a bad
> >   idea.
> 
> I was coming at this from the point of providing a common URI form 
> associated with registered feature tags, rather than *restriction* of the 
> syntax to specific URN forms.  Indeed, it was not my intent that there 
> would be any changes to CONNEG syntax;  I was trying to run with Ted's idea 
> of having some degree of uniformity in handling, while maintaining the 
> fundamental distinction between features and aggregates.

It might be a good idea to use URNs for IANA-registered features
at a time we have more experience and implementation of URNs, and
in that case, it may even be a good idea to have a single prefix
for these and only for these (because they represent something
different e.g. from books, for which you would have isbns).
But trying to cover user-defined (non-registered) features in
the same namespace would involve a rather complicated infrastructure,
most probably too much for what you get.
Also, as long as the simplest examples of urn namespaces, the
ones for rfcs and internet-drafts, don't work out of the box
for major browsers, I'm not sure we should bother IANA with
more of them.


Regards,   Martin.


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, World Wide Web Consortium
#-#-#  mailto:[email protected]   http://www.w3.org