On 1/7/20 4:33 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Keith Moore<moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I emphatically disagree. URNs have defined properties that URIs in general do
> not. The constant efforts by those politically opposed to URNs because of Not
> Invented Here syndrome, to degrade the utility of URNs, have been obvious for
> a long time now, and can only be understood as deliberate efforts to cause
> harm.
I really wanted URNs to succeed.
I have not seen this occur. Either that's because they are too hard to use,
or there isn't any compelling reason to use them. I don't know which.
There have also been efforts to sabotage them. URNs were always seen as
competing with handles and later DoIs, and some people didn't like
that. And the very idea that IETF would create a new namespace
distinct from URLs, also rankled some who saw it an intrusion on their
own architecture.
But I suspect that the biggest problem that URNs have had is that they
aren't well understood, even within IETF.
Keith
