Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Arun Ranganathan <[email protected]> wrote:
3. The renaming of the property to 'url' also suggests that we should
cease to consider an urn:uuid scheme.
I'm not sure that one follows from the other. The property's called 'url'
because that's what will be familiar to authors, but the magic string that
goes inside of it could still be a URN.
FWIW, I'm a developer and sticking a URN in a .url property really
doesn't seem familiar at all - even a '.id' property with an id that was
consistently generated would be much better.
If the scope of the identifiers is limited to a single ua, on a single
machine, and specific to that single ua (as in I can't expect to request
the identifier outside of the ua that provided it on x machine and get
the same results) then I (personally) can't see why there's a need for
anything more than a simple unique identifier (sha1 or suchlike)
And if the above is true, then surely this would negate the need for
.url, registering a new URI scheme, or URN namespace - and all in save
you all from lots of headaches & time wasted, close the issue, and save
the developer community from years of further confusion (or should i say
conflated understanding of what a URL is), and benefit the entire web by
saving us from yet another (predominantly unneeded) URN namespace or URL
scheme.
Best & leave this in your capable hands.
Nathan
