Subject: Re: PaceBasicAtomID - maybe we're done

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 12:23:04 +0200

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:39:30 -0700, David Orchard <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I don't understand this argument.  An HTTP URI is owned by the domain  
> authority.  It's as persistent as that authority decides.

I'll repeat Mark Pilgrims comment to this: «You say that like it's a good  
thing». It's not.

> It is not "by default transient".

But do you agree that it's not persistent? If so, that's a problem big  
enough.

> If an authority wants persistent HTTP URIs, then it should follow some
> URI space scheme that does so, ie http://foo.com/uuid.  That's one of
> the great things about HTTP URIs.  The domain authority can choose
> which features it wants or doesn't want.

But for atom:id authorities can't just «choose which features it wants or  
doesn't want». They need to support a set of requirements in their  
identities, and for tag, LSID and NewsML URN's, those requirements go with  
the scheme (at least to a certain extent). With HTTP URI's, those  
requirements aren't fulfilled to the least bit withohut thinking really  
hard about it.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg         -=|=-        [email-masked]
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»