Re: NEW NAMESPACE REGISTRATION: KNX

On 9/4/23 12:54 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:

> In regard to "relative URNs", comparing the KNX document line 272
> ("Relative URN without namespace identifier (with ":" at the
> beginning)") with RFC 8141 section 4.3 ("URNs and Relative References")
> and RFC 3986 (the syntax of "relative-ref"), I see that relative URNs
> (in the KNX sense) *must* start with ":", but relative URIs (in the IETF
> sense) *never* start with ":".  So though we might consider the KNX
> definition confusing, there is no contradiction, as syntax distinguishes
> whether a "relative URN" is to be interpreted per KNX or per RFC 3986.

I disagree. There *is* a contradiction, the KNX specification is using 
the term "relative URN" (which is undefined), and allowing this is not a 
responsible way to proceed.

Why do the authors of the KNX specification apparently feel the need to 
elide 'urn:knx' from the start of (some) URNs in the KNX namespace? Is 
this being done to save a few bytes over constrained links for IoT?

Peter