Re: [Uri-review] New icon URI scheme vs new URN namespace

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

I would agree to this request and add who "we" is in the sentence.  It
is not the
IETF, obviously, since the IETF recognizes that URNs are a class of URIs
with specific properties (e.g. persistence).

regards,

Ted

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> "We are trying to get people to stop making distinctions between URNs, URLs,
> and URIs."
>
> Could you clarify that sentence.  It seems to suggest that URN, URL, and URI
> all mean the same thing, and I'm sure that's not what you're trying to say.
>
> --Ray
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eran Hammer-Lahav" <[e-mail]>
> To: "David Booth" <[e-mail]>; "Pierre-Antoine LaFayette"
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 6:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [Uri-review] New icon URI scheme vs new URN namespace
>
>
>> I disagree with making general classifications.
>>
>> URNs suffer a significant lack of public understanding and stigma
>> (regardless whether it is justified or not). We are trying to get people to
>> stop making distinctions between URNs, URLs, and URIs. The decision whether
>> to register a new URI scheme vs. a new URN namespace must not be limited to
>> whether it is practical to use a URN. I have a few use cases for a new URI
>> scheme where a urn: prefix will pose a serious adoption problem because of
>> lack of URN understanding (draft pending).
>>
>> As for the icon URI scheme, it is up to the authors to decide if their
>> scheme will suffer or benefit from using the urn: scheme and make their case
>> for it.
>>
>> EHL
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> On Behalf Of David Booth
>>> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 5:44 PM
>>> To: Pierre-Antoine LaFayette
>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [Uri-review] New icon URI scheme vs new URN namespace
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 13:42 -0400, Pierre-Antoine LaFayette wrote:
>>> > In my provisional URI scheme registration request with IANA, my
>>> > reviewer noted that it may be preferable to use a URN namespace rather
>>> > than create a new URI scheme.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > E.g.
>>> >
>>> > urn:icon:ext:pdf:small
>>> > urn:icon:mime:text:plain:64
>>> > urn:icon:unknown
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > instead of:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > icon:.pdf;small
>>> > icon:text:plain;64
>>> > icon:unknown
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I wanted to run this by the list to see what the general opinion is on
>>> > this matter. What are the advantages/disadvantages and limitations of
>>> > each? I'm not sure which is more appropriate for the icon URI's use
>>> > cases.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > http://draft-icon-uri-scheme.googlecode.com/hg/draft-lafayette-icon-ur
>>> > i-scheme-00.html
>>> >
>>> >
>>> I agree with your reviewer.  IMO, if there isn't a new protocol defined
>>> for it,
>>> there is no need for a new URI scheme.  URNs are intended for exactly
>>> this
>>> kind of thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Booth, Ph.D.
>>> Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
>>>
>>> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
>>> reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Uri-review mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Uri-review mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>