# Minor clarification on url: prefix

Tim Berners-Lee (timbl@www3.cern.ch)
Thu, 2 Dec 93 17:07:09 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Randy Bush: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Previous message: Dirk Herr-Hoyman: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Next in thread: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Maybe reply: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Reply: Randy Bush: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Maybe reply: Dirk Herr-Hoyman: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Maybe reply: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Maybe reply: Mitra: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Maybe reply: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"

    Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 17:07:09 +0100

    From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@www3.cern.ch>

    Message-Id: <9312021607.AA00832@www3.cern.ch>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Minor clarification on url: prefix

>From: hoymand@joe.uwex.edu (Dirk Herr-Hoyman)
>I believe I heard another point
>
>For: Don't need to know EVERY URL access method.
>
>Against: Clients like Mosaic will rip off the url: prefix
> and look at the access method anyways.
>
>The only area I see this being really useful is in plaintext, like
e-mail
>messages. But, I thought a <> wrapper had been proposed for this
purpose
>anyhow (is this still in?)

It is in as suggested practice for delimiting URLs within
plain ascii text (ie not SGML or RFC822 headers or any other markup)
Voted in in Amsterdam.

> Trying to find URIs in plaintext is going to be
>an inexact science no matter what, since the syntax is already
complicated
>and it's REAL people typing these in.
>If we were to have a <> wrapper,
> then doing <URL ftp://myhost/dir/file>
>would be better, since it's SGML parsable.

It isn't SGML parsable.
<SOMETHING URL="ftp://myhost/dir/file">
is SGML parsable, as the value is quoted
and attached to a suitable attribute value.
This is quite sensible, but noone surely would
suggest that the URL=" should be considered part
of the URL.

How about suggesting that in an RFC822 header context
that a specific header be used for URLs?
Newsgroups: ietf.neverending.uri
URL: ftp://myhost/dir/file
Date: 1997 Mar 31 21:67

but leave the URL syntax unencumbered.
Tim

- Next message: Randy Bush: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Previous message: Dirk Herr-Hoyman: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Next in thread: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Maybe reply: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Reply: Randy Bush: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Maybe reply: Dirk Herr-Hoyman: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Maybe reply: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Maybe reply: Mitra: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Maybe reply: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"