note that I (for one) don't think the particular concerns raised by Keith
need fixing - the description of an URN that Keith seems to have in mind
seems to me to fit well with certain types of URN (such as urn:isbn), but
there seems to me no reason to expect all URNs to behave the same way in
the aspects we are talking about here (whether there exists a
dereferenceable entity to which the URN can be resolved, for instance).
I think using URN is a better solution to the problem the W3C seems to
regard as important than using HTTP URLs for the same purpose.
Harald
--On mandag, juli 08, 2002 10:08:34 -0400 Michael Mealling
<michael@neonym.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 05:02:11PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>> <snip>
>
> Sorry to have not been involved in the disucssion. Vacation and all..
>
> Based on the discussion with Graham I am at a loss as to how to fix
> the document to satisfy your concerns. It seems that most of your
> concerns are more to do with the entire W3C promoted web architecture
> than with anything in particular with this proposal other than the
> desire for the individual syntactic elements to be as semantically
> free as possible.
>
> Is there anything that can be done to fix this document or are you
> opposed to even the intended purpose of it?
>
> -MM
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1
> michael@neonym.net | |
> http://www.neonym.net
>
>
>