Re: A simpler proposal: PaceAtomIDAsString

[Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@xxxxxxx>]

* Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
>>Hmm, it would make more sense to me to specify that the content must
>>be for example the uc(md5_hex()) of some reasonably unique data
>
>That's good if you want opaque identifiers, but I haven't heard any 
>need (or even desire!) for those so far.

Well, as far as I can see, none of the arguments against specific URI
schemes, specific kinds of URIs, specific forms of URIs, etc. applies
to such identifiers... and I do not understand how that would be more
opaque than what you propose.