# Re: What URIs are and are not.

John C Klensin (KLENSIN@INFOODS.MIT.EDU)
Tue, 09 Nov 1993 08:18:41 -0500 (EST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Erik Huizer: "Re: What URIs are and are not."
- Previous message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: What URIs are and are not."
- In reply to: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: What URIs are and are not."
- Next in thread: Erik Huizer: "Re: What URIs are and are not."

    Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1993 08:18:41 -0500 (EST)

    From: John C Klensin <KLENSIN@INFOODS.MIT.EDU>

    Subject: Re: What URIs are and are not.

    In-Reply-To: <9311091028.AA08692@www3.cern.ch>

    To: timbl@NXOC01.CERN.CH

    Message-Id: <752851121.120215.KLENSIN@INFOODS.UNU.EDU>

Tim,
In the hope that adding another AD to this discussion will clarify,
rather than further muddy the waters, let me try to briefly summarize
what I (we) said in Houston.

To advance the URL document, we are going to need a clear statement of
what the WG intends it to be used for, ideally stated in terms of
functional requirements. My personal preference is that we end up with
two documents, so that the functional requirements/rationale can remain
very stable while the URL doc evolves as it passes along the standards
track. But that is just a preference; the WG should do what it thinks
best.

I expect that this document will be somewhat different than it would
have been a year or 18 months ago: we've all learned things from the
last months of discussions and examination of different requirements.

john

- Next message: Erik Huizer: "Re: What URIs are and are not."
- Previous message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: What URIs are and are not."
- In reply to: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: What URIs are and are not."
- Next in thread: Erik Huizer: "Re: What URIs are and are not."