Re: <id> and <link> are broken! (was RE: base and atom:id)

[Tim Bray <tbray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Feb 25, 2004, at 3:42 AM, Dare Obasanjo wrote:

> The fact is that an entry needs both a URN (a globally
> unique name) and a URL (a way to fetch it's HTML
> representation from the Web). Unfortunately, the
> IETF/W3C has replaced URLs and URNs with  URIs (a
> globally unique name that maybe also has a network
> retrievable representation) which simply do not do the
> same thing and lead to lots of confusion.

Well, I'm one of the authors of the Web Arch doc that Dare's dissing, 
so it's predictable that I'd disagree.  I have found the distinction 
between naming and locating to be philosophically untenable and 
practically of limited usefulness.

So I ask, why is it a fact that an entry needs these two things?  Why 
can't the ordinary old-fashioned URL also serve as an identifier?  -Tim

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature