First of all, Welcome Xiaoming Liu! On 4/25/06 8:19 AM, "Xiaoming Liu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Ryan King wrote: > >> >> URLs, if used propertly can be sufficient for "globalby unique >> identifier[s]." Sure, you can mess things up by using a non-routeable address >> or scheme, but its pretty easy to get it right, too. > > > URLs may apply to many cases but not necessarily all. > > -- some identifiers are not resolvable by default, such as UUID We are deliberately preferring identifiers that are resolvable. This is by design. > -- many identifiers have well-established convention by URI/URN registry, > such as urn:isbn or tel:, in these cases I don't think it's a good > practice to re-invent all of them in URL. We are not seeking to reinvent them. Certainly one could use "urn:isbn:..." for UIDs, there is nothing preventing that. > I think the case for ISBN is no big difference from telephone number or > zip code, etc. The average person knows, understands, and uses telephone numbers and zip codes all the time. The same cannot be said about ISBN. This is a big difference. > One may want to use good established practices instead of > having to create a URL for them. Established practices *on the Web* (which are what microformats are designed for) typically use URLs. >> Adding a URI property to any microformat would mean an expansion to the >> vocabulary, when we already have several very close terms. I'd be wary of >> doing that. >> > > Is it possible to enumerate other alternatives? I am not well familar with > all other choices, but I think both UID and URL have problems. Please list the specific problems you've found with UID or URL, so we can make sure they are documented and properly explored/resolved. Thanks, Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
