# Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix

Keith Moore (moore@cs.utk.edu)
Thu, 02 Dec 1993 15:06:22 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Jim McBeath: "wrapped URLs"
- Previous message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- In reply to: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Next in thread: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Reply: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"

    Message-Id: <199312022006.PAA05023@wilma.cs.utk.edu>

    From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>

    To: timbl@nxoc01.cern.ch

    Subject: Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 02 Dec 1993 11:53:21 +0100."

                 <9312021053.AA02421@www3.cern.ch>

    Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1993 15:06:22 -0500

I think we need some way to clearly distinguish between URNs and URLs.
It doesn't have to be with a URN/URL: prefix. But since it will be possible
to define both new UR* thingys and new URL access-types, it's not clear how
this will be done.

If you already need a HTML element or whois++ tag or whatever to identify
something as a URN or URL, having an extra "URN"/"URL"as part of the URN/URL
seems silly. Offhand, I'm tempted to suggest that URNs and other kinds of
UR-things have a prefix character. Maybe URNs could always start with '&'.
(since there are only so many special characters which could be used, maybe
there would be an incentive to limit the number of different UR-thingys? nah.)
Keith

- Next message: Jim McBeath: "wrapped URLs"
- Previous message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- In reply to: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Next in thread: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Reply: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"