# Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs...

Michael Mealling (ccoprmm@oit.gatech.edu)
Fri, 15 Oct 93 15:25:36 EDT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- Previous message: Marc Andreessen: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- In reply to: Peter Deutsch: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- Next in thread: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- Reply: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."

    From: ccoprmm@oit.gatech.edu (Michael Mealling)

    Message-Id: <199310151925.AA16777@oit.oit.gatech.edu>

    Subject: Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs...

    To: timbl@nxoc01.cern.ch

    Date: Fri, 15 Oct 93 15:25:36 EDT

    In-Reply-To: <9310150127.AA13363@expresso.bunyip.com>; from "Peter Deutsch" at Oct 14, 93 9:27 pm

Peter Deutsch said this:
> > At 6:14 PM 10/8/93 -0700, Marc Andreessen wrote:
> > >Because software has already been deployed on a very wide scale to
> > >both serve and retrieve information using the current scheme, and we
> > >and others made a huge commitment to maintain and support the current
> > >methodology -- which works fine. Changing the fundamental schema of
> > >URLs at this point would be a *huge* pain in the ass, and we'd have to
> > >support backward compatibility for years.
> > >
> > >Besides, what's the point? URLs are file:, http:, wais:, etc. URNs
> > >can be urn:. URCs can be urc:. That would do the job just fine...
> >
> > I agree with Marc that a huge installed base of clients, servers, and more
> > importantly "content" already exists utilizing the existing URL structure,
> > changing the schema at this point will destroy much of the success of WWW
> > with little potential for gain in the long run.

Warning: I think I have a solution....

I just wanted to make two points:

a) if we do add URL: to the URL spec then wouldn't it be fairly trivial
to add two or three lines of code to check and see if the first 4 characters
are "URL:" and simply strip them? That way you change your software
as your feel like it. I don't think we want to go down the OSI path
of mandating that everyone follow every part of our specifications.
I think the advantages gained by having the wrapper far outway the
handfull of cycles lost on stripping those characters.

b) I realize this would cause some rewrites to happen but aren't we
being a little unfair to the kind folx at UMN who are going to have
a hell of a time making their software work with URLs much less URNs
and such?

My solution would be that "URL:" be the wrapper for all URLs on the net.
What you do with it on your side of that ethernet card is your business.
Switch on it or don't switch on it, whatever makes your software work.

My point is that I think a lot of software is going to switch on that
value and that they can get value from it. Why hold them back because you
don't need it. I know bandwidth is a problem but 4 characters shouldn't
cause the demise of the net.

-MM

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Michael Mealling                     ! Hypermedia WWW, WAIS, and gopher will be
    Georgia Institute of Technology      ! here soon via MIME. Your view of the
    Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu      ! internet is about to change completely!

- Next message: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- Previous message: Marc Andreessen: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- In reply to: Peter Deutsch: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- Next in thread: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- Reply: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."