Lists Home |
Date Index |
Mike Champion wrote:
> For what very little it's worth, three years of this discussion has
> simply convinced me that in general namespace names should be URNs: like
> namespace names they're abstract identifiers, and AFAIK there are no
> issues about comparing them.
I would be surprised to hear that URNs are immune to
internationalization and encoding issues. And if they are not immune to
those issues then by definition they have "comparison issues", no?
> ... d) W3C could
> have "reinvented HTTP" to resolve URNs in a distributed, reliable manner
> several times over with the effort that has gone into this debate.
I don't think the issue is invention. Invention is easy. Rolling it out
is hard. See also: UDDI. What technical, economic and governance models
do you think would be reasonable? Who would be the ICANN of URNs?