Gordon Mohr wrote:
Sorry, I misunderstood.
I have in the past preferred the 'urn:' prefix to both emphasize the
location-independent nature of these identifiers, and to hint that
other URNs might reasonably be usable in the same place (even if in
practice, software only supports one or a small number of
hash-based-names).
I also once thought 'sha1' was more likely to get standards-body
approval as a registered URN 'NID' than top-level 'URI scheme'. But,
as 'sha1' has never been officially registered as either, yet is still
widely understood, this factor probably isn't important.
As you've noted and per the W3C 'clarifications', the URL/URN/URI
distinction has become less important over time, and it's obviously
reasonable for URIs to behave like 'classical view'
location-independent URNs without beginning 'urn:'.
Thanks for the info. That's reassuring since it confirms my own feeling
based on reading the relevant specs and such.
Matt
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
