"That's the nice think about standards- there are so many of them to choose
from" :-) Universal is as Universal does...
Simon:
I would say "a server takes x500 UDIs and returns physical UDIs which
deleiver the goods themselves.", meaning the same thing. (I would
allow it the option of delivering a set of addresses, not just one.)
Yes, x500 is heavyweight so one can have a lighter protocol which
accesses a real x500 engine via a gateway with a large cache.
I think we're getting on to the really big problem I've seen in every
single Doc-ID discussion: every body seems to use the same words to
mean different things. To me, there's no such thing as a physical UDI.
There can be a reference to a physical copy of a document named by a
UDI, but that doesn't seem to be what you mean. confusing everybody
else. Anybody want to offer up an 'official' notation?
Good point. What about versions which split? A great spin-off of
having versions available is that you can refer to a line number in
them. A line number in a document which is not frozen is useless.
[This solves a recurring problem in hypertext systems, when one wants
to link to part of a document to which one has no write access, and
which may change].
> Here are some suggestions.. Eat hot ASN, Cultural Cringer.
> [...]
We must be careful not to reinvent the wheel: if the USDN problem is
the same as the phone book problem (which it seems to be) then we
should pick up on x500.
Just a couple of tyres...there should be no problem using those PDUs
with X.500 (Steve?).
and i doubt whether either of those will scale to allow document
publishing on the net by every kindergarten child etc etc twice a
minute. That's why I assume x500 is best in theory at least. But tell
me I'm wrong.
Distinguished names are ok, but I'd still rather have an OID associated
with each naming authority (maybe in the future, everybody will be
issued with an OID at birth! What's your clearance, citizen?)
Simon