On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote: >> > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> >> >> All we're saying is that urn:uuid represents a specific chunk of data >> >> with a specific mimetype. This seems like something that's already there >> >> with urn:uuid. >> > >> > We're also saying that urn:uuid: has special semantics in the same-origin >> > model, and that it has an expiration model. >> >> The expiration model is just that when the Document goes away the >> urn:uuid is changed to no longer represent that chunk of data. >> >> The origin is something that at least in gecko we build on top of the >> URI, i.e. the URI itself doesn't contain any origin information. If you >> consider it to be part of the URI, then why wouldn't each urn:uuids >> already have an origin? > > I just mean that if someone else decides that they are going to resolve > urn:uuid:s in some way or other, the origin model they would use will > almost certainly be quite different to the origin model we are using here.
This doesn't seem to be a problem as long as the two specs don't mandate the exact same uuids. But again, I'd like feedback from other implementations with different network stacks. / Jonas