top | item 44195586

(no title)

donenext | 9 months ago

Thats fair. It just seems silly that a spec intended to "uniquely ID a package" supports a type that is the complete opposite of "unique". I guess another way to frame my take is should `generic` be consider a valid PURL? Keep it as a fall back sure, but distinguish between "fully qualified" PURLs and "partial" PURLs.

This then gives tooling a path to prompt users to provide missing context needed to fully qualify the PURL

discuss

pombreda|9 months ago

> distinguish between "fully qualified" PURLs and "partial" PURLs.

Can you tell a bit more? Not sure I get what you meant

jessoteric|9 months ago

That seems like a good idea... hmm.