[microformats-discuss] RFC: Thoughts on Video and Audio Microformats

Scott Reynen scott at randomchaos.com
Tue Oct 18 13:53:59 PDT 2005

Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:

> To be fair, if URNs had gotten picked up, may these uuid's may have  
> seemed more intuitive as a means of identification.   But frankly,  
> I still think it would be clearer to use:
> urn="urn:http://reptile.ca/~charles/canonical-movie.mov"
> That is just as unique, but far more human-readable.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the difference between URN and  
URL was, well, N and L.  N is just a name, but L is a location.   
Taking this back to the original context:

> the urn attribute binds 4 links together saying they are really the  
> same thing.

The URL, on the other hand, says they are the same thing, and then it  
goes on to imply they exist in the same location.  In this case, they  
don't exist in the same location.  If they did, they'd have the same  
HREF and the additional attribute would be unnecessary.  So using a  
URL as a UID creates a false assertion.


More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list