[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: URN vs URL

• To: Andy Greener <andy@g...>
• Subject: Re: URN vs URL
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:34:27 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <p05200f1bbb4da3de913e@[89.10.0.19]>
• References: <p05200f1bbb4da3de913e@[89.10.0.19]>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

Andy Greener scripsit:

> Given that it appears difficult, if not quite impossible, to obtain a
> properly registered URN-based namespace, why shouldn't I just roll my
> own, so long as I'm careful? Who's going to challenge urn:uk:co:gid:...,
> for instance, and stop me using it?.

The whole point of using registered URNs is making sure they can't possibly
collide with anyone else's use of them.  The urn:publicid: (RFC 3151) and
urn:newsml: (RFC 3085) schemes are both extremely general.  In particular,
anyone with a domain name can safely use urn:newsml:, whose general form is
"urn:newsml:domain:date:name:version", where "domain" is some domain
name that you held as of date "date", "name" is whatever you want, and
"version" is an optional strictly positive integer that is increased when you
revise the content.

So in your case URNs beginning "urn:newsml:gid.co.uk:20030730:" belong
to you already.

-- 
Do what you will,                       John Cowan
   this Life's a Fiction                jcowan@r...
And is made up of                       http://www.reutershealth.com
   Contradiction.  --William Blake      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

• References:
  • URN vs URL
    • From: Andy Greener <andy@g...>

• Prev by Date: DOM to SAX
• Next by Date: Re: DOM to SAX
• Previous by thread: RE: URN vs URL
• Next by thread: Re: URN vs URL
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread