On 4/25/06 4:00 PM, "Xiaoming Liu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Tantek Çelik wrote: > >> >>> With URI you got all these things free, and you don't have to argue about >>> persistentence or uniqueness (which are hollow without concrete >>> schema/mechanism), it's much simpler to directly reference URI RFC. >> >> True. My point is that URL is preferable over URN as well, and thus we >> prefer to say that UIDs SHOULD be URLs, though certainly per your point we >> could say if you cannot use a URL for your UID then you SHOULD at least use >> a URI/URN. >> >> Or are you proposing that we say that UIDs MUST be URIs in the context of >> microformats? >> > > I would propose to leave UID intact in hcalendar and hcard, because > whatever written in rfc2426/rfc2445 and their examples cannot be > easily changed, and they seem to work well with hcalendar/hcard. > > And I suggest a new "URI" microformat for the purpose of "indicating > something *is* an identifier" in general, in this case you can easily > reference URI RFC and no further elaboration about > persistence/resovlable/uniqueness, because these issues are addressed by > various URI specification. This seems like a reasonable proposal to at least document on the uid-brainstorming page. Please go ahead and add it. http://microformats.org/wiki/uid-brainstorming Thanks, Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss