>>Applying RFC 2141 is fine from my point of view.
>Wouldn't it be fine to have "avalon:" as the root? Like this:
>
>avalon:home.work
>avalon:merlin:something-special.whatever
>avalon:phoenix:something-solid.xxx
I would suggest that an RFC 2141 utility class is going to want to take a
URN, validate it, and make available the NID and NSS components. At that
point you are probably not going to want to have to do any further parsing
on either part. Therefore, you should stick with the NSS being the actual
keys you want, and the NID providing the domain.
This would mean:
urn:avalon:home.work
urn:avalon-merlin:something-special.whatever
urn:avalon-phoenix:something-solid.xxx
The difference being that ':' is not valid within an NID. It always
separates the NID from the NSS.
I do have a linguistic objection to the third example, by the way.
Something "solid" implies an implementation of an abstract item. In that
case, it should be looked up using the abstract item's key, so that it is
portable across all implementing containers. It is a linguistic nitpick,
perhaps, but I did want to point out the implication.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
