> As we iterated on our approach, we have decided to follow more recent recommendations and not limit our identifiers to the deprecated concept of URN.
I was not aware URN was deprecated... Is there a reference somewhere to these recommendations?
I was not aware URN was deprecated... Is there a reference somewhere to these recommendations?
The use of URN for a specific URI scheme that provides names, for which there is a global registry of namespaces to ensure uniqueness, etc.—which is what the article discusses—is in now way deprecated. The author seems to be ill-informed on the point which apparently is the only stated reason for not using the internet standard that directly applies to the use case.
That's what I also suspected. Thanks!
Whatever the URN reference is intended to mean, this seems to be custom-over-standard with less clear justification than I would want for that choice.
The deprecation comment refers to this: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-1.1.3 we had been using URNs and URLs the old way.
But in any case the fact that we're having this conversation I had had to dig up some RFC from 2005 reflects the actual reason for not following any specific standard: I perceive them and their specifications to be confusing and full of historical context that has changed over time. Assuming that there are no other benefits to using the URN scheme specifically (maybe there are and I am not aware of them?) I'd rather use a simplified URI and custom schemes.