[p2p-hackers] Generating unique IDs

Matthew Gertner matthew at allpeers.com
Thu Jul 12 05:22:29 EDT 2007

Gordon Mohr wrote:
> Sorry, I misunderstood.
> I have in the past preferred the 'urn:' prefix to both emphasize the 
> location-independent nature of these identifiers, and to hint that 
> other URNs might reasonably be usable in the same place (even if in 
> practice, software only supports one or a small number of 
> hash-based-names).
> I also once thought 'sha1' was more likely to get standards-body 
> approval as a registered URN 'NID' than top-level 'URI scheme'. But, 
> as 'sha1' has never been officially registered as either, yet is still 
> widely understood, this factor probably isn't important.
> As you've noted and per the W3C 'clarifications', the URL/URN/URI 
> distinction has become less important over time, and it's obviously 
> reasonable for URIs to behave like 'classical view' 
> location-independent URNs without beginning 'urn:'.
Thanks for the info. That's reassuring since it confirms my own feeling 
based on reading the relevant specs and such.


More information about the p2p-hackers mailing list