Re: [URN] Re: Relative URLs and URNs

On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Ron Daniel Jr. wrote:

> Thus spoke Daniel LaLiberte:
> >Ron Daniel, Jr. writes:
> > > The point I was trying to make is that the presence of the relative
> > > URLs is not helping us as we make the transition to URNs.
> >
> >Relative URLs (which are relative URIs intended to be interpreted
> >relative to an absolute URL) would not interfere with a transition
> >to URNs if you keep the same absolute URL base.
> 
> Not always true. If our resolver offers the N2R service, its nice to
> use it because bookmarks will be to the URN, not to a URL. Similarly,
> the Location: text field in netscape will display the URN. However,
> that means that relative URIs will be relative to the URN, not the
> URL of the instance we fetch. Since the hierarchies are not the same,
> it breaks.

The problem that the thing you want to have in the bookmark and the
thing you want to use for relative URL resolving are not the same
was discussed earlier in quite some detail. It might be time to
split these into two. But then again, I'm not at all sure whether
this will lead to a consistent model for relative URNs, or whether
this will contribute to the need for relative URNs.


Regards,	Martin.