[URN] Re: Relative URLs, // and ;
"Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch> Tue, 28 January 1997 09:21 UTC
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id EAA16782 for urn-ietf-out; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 04:21:38 -0500
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id EAA16775 for <urn-ietf@services.bunyip.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 04:21:36 -0500
Received: from josef.ifi.unizh.ch by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA12762 (mail destined for urn-ietf@services.bunyip.com); Tue, 28 Jan 97 04:21:33 -0500
Received: from enoshima.ifi.unizh.ch by josef.ifi.unizh.ch with SMTP (PP) id <22338-0@josef.ifi.unizh.ch>; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 10:21:39 +0100
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 10:21:38 +0100
From: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
To: "Ron Daniel Jr." <rdaniel@lanl.gov>
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, URL mailing list <ietf-url@imc.org>, urn-ietf@bunyip.com
Subject: [URN] Re: Relative URLs, // and ;
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970127161513.00719f30@acl.lanl.gov>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95q.970128100313.245B-100000@enoshima>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-urn-ietf@services.bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
Errors-To: owner-urn-ietf@bunyip.com
On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Ron Daniel Jr. wrote: > [I'm adding urn-ietf@bunyip.com to the Cc list since that is the > list for the IETF's URN-WG.] > > Thus spoke Tim Berners-Lee: > > >The URN scheme should be > >mapped onto > >urn1://authority/nameissuedbyauthority As far as I understand, the first part after the "urn" prefix is not an authority (work is going on on mechanisms to actually find such authorities or resolvers), but more akin to a scheme in the URL case. So the use of ":" instead of "//" has some merit. > The proposed URN syntax is laid out in draft-ietf-urn-syntax, but > the short description is: > urn:namespace_id:namespace_specific_string > for example > urn:isbn:1-234-5678-9 > urn:upc:42709-10150 > etc. > > Some namespaces, such as ISO Formal Public Identifiers, already make > use of '//'. For such namespaces we say they need to %encode occurances > of '/' that do not follow the rules of RFC1639. Those rules were that > '/' denoted hierarchy with the most significant component on the left. I beg to disagree. URNs are designed to be syntactically equivalent to opaque URLs. In an opaque URL, escaping of '/' is not needed, unless it is syntactically significant. See e.g. section 2.1 of draft-fielding-... The only reserved characters that URN syntax itself uses is ":", and this doesn't have to be escaped because it cannot appear in the first two parts ("urn" and e.g. "isbn"). The need of escaping of reserved characters after the second ":" is determined by the needs of the namespace. These will usually be rather low, as some of them don't use many characters so that there is no problem identifying reserved characters, and others will most certainly have their own way to get around this problem. E.g. in the case of "isbn", "-" is a reserved character, but it is not also used at the place of a digit (or X). In the case of ISO Formal Public Identifiers, either "/" is also disallowed between structurally meaningful "/", or there must be a way to escape such "/". > At this time we have not defined any relative URN specification. Because URNs are persistent, the main advantage of relative URNs, namely invariance on coordinated movements to other locations, is irrelevant. What could be more relevant is the possibility to address parts of resources, or 'locations' within resources, together with URNs. I have sent some considerations about this to Leslie as a response to her request on the URN mailing list; I can make this available if somebody is interested. Regards, Martin.
- Re: Relative URLs, // and ; Ron Daniel Jr.
- [URN] Re: Relative URLs and URNs Keith Moore
- [URN] Re: Relative URLs and URNs Daniel LaLiberte
- [URN] Re: Relative URLs, // and ; Martin J. Duerst