RE: Symbolic vs Numeric identifiers (was Re: URL internationalization!)

Fisher Mark <FisherM@exch1.indy.tce.com> Mon, 03 March 1997 17:09 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa18217; 3 Mar 97 12:09 EST
Received: from services.Bunyip.Com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11146; 3 Mar 97 12:09 EST
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA11561 for uri-out; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 11:04:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA11553 for <uri@services.bunyip.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 11:04:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from inet-gw.indy.tce.com by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA16481 (mail destined for uri@services.bunyip.com); Mon, 3 Mar 97 11:04:03 -0500
Received: (from uucp@localhost) by tcemail.indy.tce.com (8.8.4/8.8.3) id LAA25831 for <uri@bunyip.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 11:03:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tceis5.indy.tce.com(157.254.92.69) by seawall.indy.tce.com via smap (V1.3) id smad25797; Mon Mar 3 11:03:11 1997
Received: by tceis5.indy.tce.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC27C2.3DE137C0@tceis5.indy.tce.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 11:01:27 -0500
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=THOMSON%l=TCEIS5-970303160125Z-23186@tceis5.indy.tce.com>
From: Fisher Mark <FisherM@exch1.indy.tce.com>
To: "'mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch'" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>, "'gtn@ebt.com'" <gtn@ebt.com>
Cc: "'liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu'" <liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu>, "'gjw@wnetc.com'" <gjw@wnetc.com>, "'uri@Bunyip.Com'" <uri@bunyip.com>
Subject: RE: Symbolic vs Numeric identifiers (was Re: URL internationalization!)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 11:01:25 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-uri@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk

Gavin, you write:
>>Right. The fundamental argument here is whether URL's are supposed to
>>be completely opaque or not. Given current usage, it's awfully hard
>>to make a case for opaqueness... not that I think the opaque 
>>representation concept isn't useful: I think it's vital.

The important point here is that URIs that can be meaningful can also be
meaningless, but the converse is not generally true.  For many
applications, URIs that are meaningless to the casual observer are the
right choice (the talked-about ISBN URN).  In other cases, especially in
Intranets, meaningful URIs are the right choice.

BTW, does anyone know if the original CERN <URL:http://info.cern.ch/>
Web started out by using meaningless URLs?  (I only started on the Web
in Dec. 1993, by which time CERN's URLs made sense to me.)  Certainly,
from what I understand, the original NextStep environment should have
made using meaningless URLs easy, as the user should have been able to
just treat them as magic cookies.
>================================================
>Mark Leighton Fisher                   Thomson Consumer Electronics
>fisherm@indy.tce.com                 Indianapolis, IN
>