Re: <reductions>

[Joel E. Denny]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Tim Van Holder wrote:

> Joel E. Denny wrote:
> >> For bison you could use "urn:x-gnu:bison:2.3b" or something.
> > 
> > Is there a precedent for this?  I guess x = xml?
> 
> The "x-" prefix stands for experimental; without it, the URN would be
> 'nonstandard' because the first word after the initial 'urn:' is the
> namespace name and namespaces need to be officially registered for it
> to be a 'real' URN. Exception is the experimental namespaces, which is
> why I used one - I have no idea if there's more appropriate namespaces
> already available.

Thanks.  A little googling reveals that "urn:x-" is pervasive, but I 
somehow never noticed.  Is this formally specified somewhere?

In any case, I find that I'm forming no strong opinions about which 
proposal for Bison's namespace is best.  Any other comments from anyone?