# Re: The <URL: Wrapper take 2

Jon P. Knight (J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk)
Fri, 16 Sep 1994 08:34:03 +0100 (BST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Larry Masinter: "don't send mail about <URL:...> prefix here"
- Previous message: Roy T. Fielding: "LIFN draft?"
- In reply to: Steven D. Majewski: "Re: The <URL: Wrapper take 2"
- Next in thread: Mark P. McCahill: "Re: The <URL: Wrapper take 2"

    Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 08:34:03 +0100 (BST)

    From: "Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>

    Subject: Re: The <URL: Wrapper take 2

    To: "Steven D. Majewski" <sdm7g@virginia.edu>

    In-Reply-To: <Pine.A32.3.90.940915162601.23076A-100000@elvis.med.Virginia.EDU>

    Message-Id: <Pine.3.05.9409160802.D25527-b100000@suna>

On Thu, 15 Sep 1994, Steven D. Majewski wrote:
> I'm not voting to rubber stamp current practice, but the question is,
> how is <URL:scheme://...> and improvement over <scheme://...> ?

Well I can think of a couple of ways that <URL:scheme://...> is slightly
better than just <scheme://...>. Firstly the <URL: is less likely to be
appear randomly in text than just a < (I wonder how many message ID's
start with URL: and then have a second : in them? Few I'd think).
Secondly it may help people recognise a URL in the text (well *I* find it
useful and I'm a person, so there's a proof of that statement!).

Suggestion: to solve this once and for all, could we have a formal email
vote on whether to just drop this or leave it in? No more discussions as
this is just going round in circles; simple yes or no answer. I'd offer
to do this, but I think that the WG chair should as he is impartial. Say
send the vote out today, let people reply in the next week it a simple
yes/no answer and then give us the result a week on Monday. If it stays,
it stays. If it goes, it leaves the document, the draft can progress and
those of us that like the wrapper can issue an ID proposing it separately.

What do you think? Any takers?

Jon

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jon Knight, Research Student in High Performance Networking and Distributed
Systems in the Department of _Computer_Studies_ at Loughborough University.
* It's not how big your share is, its how much you share that's important *

- Next message: Larry Masinter: "don't send mail about <URL:...> prefix here"
- Previous message: Roy T. Fielding: "LIFN draft?"
- In reply to: Steven D. Majewski: "Re: The <URL: Wrapper take 2"
- Next in thread: Mark P. McCahill: "Re: The <URL: Wrapper take 2"