# Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes

Roy T. Fielding (fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU)
Sat, 25 Nov 1995 02:09:15 -0800

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: weibel@oclc.org: "Duplication of messages"
- Previous message: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- In reply to: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Next in thread: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Reply: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"

    To: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no

    Subject: Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 24 Nov 1995 11:41:16 +0100."

                 <9511241041.AA20837@mocha.bunyip.com>

    Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 02:09:15 -0800

    From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>

    Message-Id:  <9511250209.aa06921@paris.ics.uci.edu>

One thing missing:

Does the scheme intend to be used in relative forms?
If so, can it be parsed using the generic-RL BNF of RFC 1808
and retain the correct semantics?

Actually, I think the latter should be a requirement of any hierarchical
scheme, even if it isn't intended to be relative.

...Roy T. Fielding
Department of Information & Computer Science (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
University of California, Irvine, CA 92717-3425 fax:+1(714)824-4056
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/

- Next message: weibel@oclc.org: "Duplication of messages"
- Previous message: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- In reply to: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Next in thread: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Reply: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"