# Re: Minutes for URI

Alan Emtage (bajan@bunyip.com)
Sun, 28 Nov 1993 18:24:51 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Erik Ostrom: "Re: Minutes for URI"
- Previous message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: What we're trying to do here..."
- Maybe in reply to: Alan Emtage: "Minutes for URI"
- Next in thread: Erik Ostrom: "Re: Minutes for URI"
- Reply: Erik Ostrom: "Re: Minutes for URI"

    Message-Id: <9311282324.AA15643@mocha.bunyip.com>

    From: bajan@bunyip.com (Alan Emtage)

    Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1993 18:24:51 -0500

    In-Reply-To: Erik Ostrom's message as of Nov 23, 22:46

    To: Erik Ostrom <eostrom@pepperoncini.gac.edu>, uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: Minutes for URI

[Erik Ostrom <eostrom@pepperoncini.gac.edu> writes:]
> So why do we want URL: in the URL? I know people were opposed to it,
> there must have been some pretty convincing arguments.

If memory serves, the final argument that shifted the balance was:

In order to pick up URL's in free text (eg, a mail message) it would
have to be tagged. Otherwise the scanner would have to be able to
recognize every possible URL access method. This was considered
infeasible.

I believe that somebody also made the point that if we were going to have
the other UR* prefixed (URN: for example) then it seem for consistency
that URL: would be the way to go.

    --
    -Alan

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alan Emtage,				"The Left in Canada is more gauche
    Bunyip Information Systems,		 than sinister"
    Montreal, CANADA			 -The Economist

    bajan@bunyip.com
    Voice: +1 (514) 875-8611		Fax: +1 (514) 875-8134

- Next message: Erik Ostrom: "Re: Minutes for URI"
- Previous message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: What we're trying to do here..."
- Maybe in reply to: Alan Emtage: "Minutes for URI"
- Next in thread: Erik Ostrom: "Re: Minutes for URI"
- Reply: Erik Ostrom: "Re: Minutes for URI"