Re: [URN] Re: Relative URLs and URNs

Martin J. Duerst writes:
>
>First, relative operations are purely syntactical, so the client will
>just chop off on the URN and either construct something (or get
>stuck). This is actually in contrast with what Daniel suggests
>or supposes in some of his mails, namely that the browser is using
>some knowledge about the hierarchy for retrieval: It doesn't
>presently for URLs.

An excellent insight:  we must be careful to distinguish between
syntactic transformations and semantic "knowledge".  The rules for
processing relative URIs are an example of the former.


>For those that are sceptical with respect to relative namespaces,
>it means just not to allow slashes in your namespace or your URNs.

There's no need to be even this strong.  If relative naming is
inappropriate for a particular URI namespace, then don't publish
relative URIs for that namespace.  All the issues about whether and
how slashes should be interpreted then become moot.

The guidance that the RFCs should give is this:  If a namespace designer
chooses to use a slash in a (semantic) manner that is inconsistent with
current practice, then even if no syntactic difficulties are caused,
he will be at risk of generating "much heat (but maybe little light)"
and should think carefully.


Scott
[email protected]