Michael Rogers wrote:
Matthew Gertner wrote:
My question, in a nutshell was: why use
<urn:sha1:QYSLZWXFLOXO6AGNCHK57T5GB5UHCCQC> rather than just
<sha1:QYSLZWXFLOXO6AGNCHK57T5GB5UHCCQC>?
The URN prefix indicates that the hash is a location-independent data
identifier, as opposed to, say, a JXTA peer ID, a HIP key fingerprint, etc.
I just found http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/ and it seems to me
that the very notion of a urn: scheme might be obsolete. Why do things
that are notionally URNs (i.e. location-independent) need to use the
urn: scheme and a special URN namespace, whereas URLs can use any
scheme? By this logic, sha1: and md5: would be perfectly valid
location-independent URI schemes. Otherwise, we should be using
url:http://..., url:ftp://, etc. for consistency's sake, right?
Matt
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
