• To: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: Re: DNS based URIs that don't imply access method
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:21:00 -0700
• Cc: Mike Champion <mc@x...>, xml-dev@l...
• References: <200207252027.QAA18020@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020722

John Cowan wrote:

> This can be done today with "urn:publicid:IDN+domain.name:this:that:tother.
> The only difference from what you specify is the : instead of /.  Relative
> forms are not defined for URNs.

My goodness, I hadn't realized that.  RFC2396 [URIs] certainly defines a 
relative URI mechanism that cuts across all schemes and relies on the 
use of '/'.  But Section 2.3.2 of RFC 2141 [URNs] says you can't use 
'/'.  That section is interesting and also short, so I'll quote it:

    2.3.2 The other reserved characters

    RFC 1630 [2] reserves the characters "/", "?", and "#" for particular
    purposes. The URN-WG has not yet debated the applicability and
    precise semantics of those purposes as applied to URNs. Therefore,
    these characters are RESERVED for future developments.  Namespace
    developers SHOULD NOT use these characters in unencoded form, but
    rather use the appropriate %-encoding for each character.

Hmm.... the more I learn about URNs, the fewer use-cases I can imagine. -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: DNS based URIs that don't imply access method
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: DNS based URIs that don't imply access method
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: URIs harmful
• Next by Date: RE: DNS based URIs that don't imply access method
• Previous by thread: Re: DNS based URIs that don't imply access method
• Next by thread: Re: DNS based URIs that don't imply access method
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread