[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Jonathan,
Jonathan said:
The fact that servers go down, and DNS entries change owners over time,
are
well known problems with HTTP and the current Web. URNs, which don't
have
any real infrastructure, aren't a solution to this problem. Perhaps
someday
someone will put up a new infrastructure which allows people to use URNs
in
a reasonable fashion. When that day comes, we would be able to debate
whether or not it was better than HTTP. In the meantime we can try to
make
HTTP systems as robust as possible. Heck, they are already a whole lot
more
robust than anyone would have ever predicated. Credit to HTTP.
Didier replies:
In fact, what is missing is the client part since the name resolution
can occur on DNS servers. Thus the actual infrastructure is already
there. Yes an other part is missing: the headends. We need headends like
the ones we already have for domain names. Instead of domain name
registration entities we would have name space registration entities. So
what is missing is:
a) name space headends.
b) clients supporting the URN queries (i.e. DNS queries for URN
resolution).
To start a name space registration organism (i.e. a DNS headend) is not
a big deal but to get the user agents to support URNs holds in the hands
of Microsoft and to a least extent in the hands of Mozilla organization.
And to move a monopoly having nearly no competition is a big deal.
Cheers
Didier PH Martin
|
