Re: Stab in the dark

"Jon P. Knight" <>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 12:25:01 --100
Message-id: <Pine.3.05.9403171136.E28520-b100000@suna>
Precedence: bulk
From: "Jon P. Knight" <>
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
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
> > 
> >
> 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 <> 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 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. *