"uid" microformats? (was Re: [uf-discuss] ISBN mark-up)

Tantek Ç elik tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Tue Apr 25 15:35:53 PDT 2006

On 4/25/06 3:25 PM, "Xiaoming Liu" <liu_x at lanl.gov> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> ISO8601 is fairly well accepted.  The battle is over.  So we pick the
>> current winner and go with it.
>> Whereas, as you point out, the market for abstract ids, whether ISBN,
>> pubmed, or whatever is still churning away, so we let it continue to churn.
> I think it's a mistake to call these abstract ids are still churning away
> by market. They are well maintained by IANA [1] [2]
> [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces
> [2] http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html

Thanks for those links Xiaoming!

I have added them to the See Also of uid-brainstorming:


(by churning away, I only mean that there are both several unique abstract
id schemes already, as documented by the above urls, and that we're likely
to see more in the future.)

> With URI you got all these things free, and you don't have to argue about
> persistentence or uniqueness (which are hollow without concrete
> schema/mechanism), it's much simpler to directly reference URI RFC.

True.  My point is that URL is preferable over URN as well, and thus we
prefer to say that UIDs SHOULD be URLs, though certainly per your point we
could say if you cannot use a URL for your UID then you SHOULD at least use

Or are you proposing that we say that UIDs MUST be URIs in the context of



More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list