[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
John Cowan wrote:
> This can be done today with "urn:publicid:IDN+domain.name:this:that:tother.
> The only difference from what you specify is the : instead of /. Relative
> forms are not defined for URNs.
My goodness, I hadn't realized that. RFC2396 [URIs] certainly defines a
relative URI mechanism that cuts across all schemes and relies on the
use of '/'. But Section 2.3.2 of RFC 2141 [URNs] says you can't use
'/'. That section is interesting and also short, so I'll quote it:
2.3.2 The other reserved characters
RFC 1630 [2] reserves the characters "/", "?", and "#" for particular
purposes. The URN-WG has not yet debated the applicability and
precise semantics of those purposes as applied to URNs. Therefore,
these characters are RESERVED for future developments. Namespace
developers SHOULD NOT use these characters in unencoded form, but
rather use the appropriate %-encoding for each character.
Hmm.... the more I learn about URNs, the fewer use-cases I can imagine. -Tim
|
