Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Since urns are not a distinct syntactic category, the justification
> for the urn: prefix disappears. It is not only useless, it is
> unnecessary. There is no circumstance in which a urn subscheme and a
> uri scheme should be allowed to have divergent meanings.
> Why make people write urn:ietf:rfc:2648 when ietf:rfc:2648 is sufficient?
I must agree.
This distinction has always confused me.
This is also a situation where we (the IETF) have failed to put our money
where our mouth is.... where is the ietf:rfc URN resolution service? Where is
the reference code?
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature