# The <URL: Wrapper take 2

Chris Weider (clw@mocha.bunyip.com)
Thu, 15 Sep 94 11:25:44 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Jon P. Knight: "Re: <URL:...> considered harmful"
- Previous message: Sally Hambridge: "The <URL: Wrapper take 2"
- Next in thread: Steven D. Majewski: "Re: The <URL: Wrapper take 2"
- Reply: Steven D. Majewski: "Re: The <URL: Wrapper take 2"
- Reply: Michael Mealling: "Re: The <URL: Wrapper take 2"
- Maybe reply: Mark P. McCahill: "Re: The <URL: Wrapper take 2"

    Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 11:25:44 -0400

    From: Chris Weider <clw@mocha.bunyip.com>

    Message-Id: <9409151525.AA24457@mocha.bunyip.com>

    To: J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk, clw@mocha.bunyip.com

    Subject: The <URL: Wrapper take 2

Larry:
I think I'm going to be a hard nosed dude here: This is the first objection
I've seen publicly raised to an issue that in my mind was settled more than
a year ago, I haven't seen any compelling arguments against wrappers (sorry Dan)
and I've already done my compromising on this :^) I think we should leave it in.
Chris

- Next message: Jon P. Knight: "Re: <URL:...> considered harmful"
- Previous message: Sally Hambridge: "The <URL: Wrapper take 2"
- Next in thread: Steven D. Majewski: "Re: The <URL: Wrapper take 2"
- Reply: Steven D. Majewski: "Re: The <URL: Wrapper take 2"
- Reply: Michael Mealling: "Re: The <URL: Wrapper take 2"
- Maybe reply: Mark P. McCahill: "Re: The <URL: Wrapper take 2"