Jonathan Rees wrote:
This isn't academic. The Library of Congress trashes the http: scheme
[1] in the same way that the LSID spec does - they say it's no good
because URIs are locators (first answer) instead of "identifiers"
(references; second answer). The justification for using http: for
literature reference, even in the best of circumstances, has got to be
better than "trust me" or "it usually works" or "you're being anal".
[1] http://www.loc.gov/standards/uri/news.html
Note that they "trash" both the URL and the URN scheme for -- unlike the
"info" scheme -- implying resolvability. In practice, people will know that
you can resolve an "unresolvable" URI such as info:arxiv/hep-th/9901001 to
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9901001, so the main difference I guess is that
with "info" URIs the resolution is non-standard and namespace-specific...
