Re: [URN] Re: Relative URLs and URNs

Thus spoke Roy Fielding:

> If '/' is disallowed in URNs, then a conforming parser will reject
> a URN containing '/'.  That means you will never be able to introduce
> relative URNs.

Perhaps I was reading something into Keith's statement that wasn't
really there, but I took his statement to mean that the syntax draft
(or another document) would tell namespace developers not to use
unencoded '/' while we figure out if it will or won't follow 1630.

Since he said that we could always add relative URNs later, it would
not seem to be a blanket prohibition on unencoded '/'. "should not"
vs. "must not", as we have said in some more recent messages.