Re: Stab in the dark
"Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 12:25:01 --100
Message-id: <Pine.3.05.9403171136.E28520-b100000@suna>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: "Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Stab in the dark
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 1312
On Thu, 17 Mar 1994, Keith Moore wrote:
> > Then
> > the rest of the URN is appended - in the example this gives us
> >
> > http://www.mrrl.lut.ac.uk/urn/martin/top
>
> Yikes!! I see no reason that a URN should be constrained to contain
> any part of an eventual URL (or likewise, why a URL should have to
> contain any part of any of the URNs that might point to it.)
> And I can see some very good reasons NOT to impose this constraint.
>
Martin showed me this last night and I was under the impression that the
URL <http://www.mrrl.lut.ac.uk/urn/martin/top> wasn't an eventual URL that
the URN was pointing at but was the URL of the URC which contained
multiple URLs which you then followed to get to the resource. I can't
really see why the system couldn't tack more or less anything from the end
of the URN onto the URL stem returned from the DNS to point to the URC; surely
this would be up to the administrators of that URC to decide? What's the
good reasons that this won't work?
Jon
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jon Knight, Research Student in High Performance Networking and Distributed
Systems in the Department of _Computer_Studies_ at Loughborough University.
* Its not how big your share is, its how much you share that's important. *