Subject: Re: URN syntax Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:10:08 -0700 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (David Hyatt) To: Warren Harris <email@example.com> CC: Ray Whitmer <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Chris Waterson <email@example.com> References: 1 This is easy to fix... give me a bug on it... Warren Harris wrote: > Dave, > > I've noticed that the urns we use in in manifest.rdf files have the > form "urn:mozilla:package:...". Ray tells me that urns should look > like this: "urn:inet:mozilla.org:package:...". I'm not sure how > important this might be long-term. > > Warren >
Marking nsbeta3. Probably important to get this right since we're trying to standardize all this chrome/xul stuff.
I don't think this can be futured. It's like shipping a product that only parses broken html, and then telling everybody "just do it the broken way." Erasing nsbeta3-.
This bug is trivial compared to the 70 or so other bugs we have already committed to fix, but are probably not going to be able to fix. If we started plussing bugs like this, we'd have 700. We are date-driven, and with only 3.5 weeks left we have to cut to fit. This one does not fit, it will require far too many changes to the RDF, for zero benefit to the product. These are just internal identifiers, they don't need to be standardized now. Hyatt now wishes he called them Purple Fuzzy Bunnies (PFBs), but if you like you can think of them as Unidentified Resource Notation. nsbeta3-, cc jrgm
FWIW: Eventually, there will (probably) be a standard for URN's. There isn't one now. I doubt urn:mozilla will be legal or registerable, but I do not know. I suspect urn:inet:... will be legal, but I do not know that either. Without a real standard list it is hard to say what is really legal and illegal, as long as no illegal constructs or characters appear. We are not the only ones making up our own names, without any registered scheme that allows us to do so. I don't like it, I would never advocate this type of urn's, but I cannot strongly condemn it yet. Using URNs for strings to identify things is just guessing right now, the way I read the documents. If we were to use reserved characters that the current specs forbid, then I could strongly condemn it (which was one reason we finally chose not to use them for contractid's).
FWIK, the inet scheme has never been official, and there seem to be ne plan to register it... This bug should be resolved WONTFIX. See also bug 227321.
Although it is common practice to duplicte newer bugs to older bugs, the never bug seems clearer and doesn't contain confusing comments. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 227321 ***