Re: [urn] NEW NAMESPACE REGISTRATION: KNX

[[e-mail]]

Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> writes:
> I disagree. There *is* a contradiction, the KNX specification is using 
> the term "relative URN" (which is undefined), and allowing this is not a 
> responsible way to proceed.
>
> Why do the authors of the KNX specification apparently feel the need to 
> elide 'urn:knx' from the start of (some) URNs in the KNX namespace? Is 
> this being done to save a few bytes over constrained links for IoT?

There actually *is* a definition of "relative URN", although the
discussion admits that relative URNs are largely worthless.  See RFC
8141 section 4.3 "URNs and Relative References".

As far as I can tell from the document, the KNX people want to save the
7 bytes over constrained links.

IMHO the KNX usage would better use the word "abbreviated", as the
connotations of the word are closer to the intended usage -- the
transmitted string is shorter, but it is not interpreted *relative to*
another string.  But I'm OK with a second meaning being given to a word
when the situation is syntactically distinguishable from the original
meaning and almost certainly will be confined to a circumscribed
subfield.

Dale