IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new "protocols" ?)

"Ron Daniel Jr." <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov> Fri, 21 February 1997 00:04 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa01819; 20 Feb 97 19:04 EST
Received: from services.Bunyip.Com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26385; 20 Feb 97 19:04 EST
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA15017 for uri-out; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:51:50 -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 SAA15012 for <uri@services.bunyip.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:51:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from acl.lanl.gov by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA27762 (mail destined for uri@services.bunyip.com); Thu, 20 Feb 97 18:51:46 -0500
Received: from montana (montana.acl.lanl.gov [128.165.147.143]) by acl.lanl.gov (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA04863; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:51:39 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970220164958.0097c100@acl.lanl.gov>
X-Sender: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:51:28 -0700
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Daniel LaLiberte <liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
From: "Ron Daniel Jr." <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>
Subject: Re: URI-protocol mapping (was Re: How to add new "protocols" ?)
Cc: touch@isi.edu, uri@bunyip.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-uri@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk

At 04:31 PM 2/20/97 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
>For example, I notice that Ron Daniel's proposes[1] some mechanisms
>for URN resolution. Funny enough: they work just fine on
>strings like:
>
>	http://www.foo.com/software/latest-beta.exe

That's why the title of the draft talks about resolving URIs, not URNs. :-)

>Personally, I caved in a while ago: the community refers
>to these things as URLs (as in "hurl me an url, dude!"),
>so I call them URLs almost all
>the time. I don't feel that having two or three terms
>(URI, URN) which differ only in their connotations, rather
>than in the technical mechanisms and uses, is useful at all.

Well, there is at least one place where I think a useful technical
distinction can be made. URNs are to be location-independent. Not
only is the notion of a "location-independent locator" a bit
tortured, I would have a hard time calling
  http://www.foo.com/whatever
a URN since it clearly has a preferred location for resolution.

Regards,

Ron Daniel Jr.              voice:+1 505 665 0597
Advanced Computing Lab        fax:+1 505 665 4939
MS B287                     email:rdaniel@lanl.gov
Los Alamos National Lab      http://www.acl.lanl.gov/~rdaniel
Los Alamos, NM, USA, 87545

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email