# questions on URL draft

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Sun, 10 Jul 1994 15:50:14 PDT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: questions on URL draft"
- Previous message: Steven D. Majewski: "Re: sequence numbers ( was: (long) sketch of proposed imap: URL syntax ... )"
- Next in thread: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: questions on URL draft"
- Maybe reply: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: questions on URL draft"
- Reply: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: questions on URL draft"
- Maybe reply: Fisher Mark: "Re: questions on URL draft"
- Maybe reply: Mitra: "Re: questions on URL draft"
- Maybe reply: Margaret St. Pierre: "Re: questions on URL draft"
- Maybe reply: John Curran: "Re: questions on URL draft"

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: questions on URL draft

    From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>

    Message-Id: <94Jul10.155019pdt.168962@nebula.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: 	Sun, 10 Jul 1994 15:50:14 PDT

This is just a straw poll, to assess 'consensus'. I will send out a
summary of everyone's response, whether you reply publicly or
privately. I don't intend for this to be a vote, but the sense of the
group really isn't clear to me on these issues, and it seems
reasonable to gather information. I have some personal opinions, but I
don't want to impose them on the group.

For each question, please answer with one of:
preferable you would prefer this option over all others
acceptable this is acceptable, even if you don't prefer it
unacceptable you think this would result in an unacceptable
specification
no opinion you don't care
undecided you might care, but you haven't made up your
mind, need more information, etc.
other (some other opinion that I haven't thought of)

If you want to modify these questions or add different ones, let me
know and I'll include them in a subsequent list. I'd prefer it if
you'd not include a lot of comments in your reply, but in a separate
message (to the list, if you like).

Note that you can find mutually exclusive proposals `acceptable' even
though you don't think the combination is.

If you want an explanation of why these are issues or what the various
pros and cons are, let me know.
================================================================

1. Add ">" to the list of characters that are `universally reserved'
and must be encoded in all URLs). [Used for terminating <>]
2. Add "<", ">", and """ (doublequote) to the list of characters
that are universally reserved. [as with 1, but be safe]

3. Remove `wais:' scheme from this draft. [not well enough defined?]
4. Add `local-file:<path>' as a URL that references a local file.
[one opinion]

5. Add `file:<path>' as a URL that references a local file. [closer
to current practice]

6. Add `file://<host>/<path>' as a URL that references a local file
when referenced from <host>. [as per TimBL]

7. Include `file://localhost/<path>' in file URLs. [as per TimBL]

8. Add `&' as a `reserved' character. [used in forms response]

9. Add `&' as a `reserved' character, and describe its use in the
URLs that result from encoding the value of HTML forms. [more
writing]

10. Assert that no new URL scheme can reserve any characters that are
not listed as `reserved' in this document. [allows gateways
to know what can be escaped without loss of semantics; restricts
future schemes as to which chars can be reserved]

11. Add an Appendix B that describes `relative URLs' in this document.

12. Move the "URL:" prefix requirement to the (first) Appendix as a
recommendation for URLs `in plain text'.

13. Assert that `scheme' names are case insensitive (e.g., HTTP: is
equivalent to http:). [I think we discussed this but don't
remember a consensus]
14. Limit `scheme' names to lowercase ASCII letters, digits, plus,
hyphen and underscore, with no encoding. [as proposed]

15. Remove the recommendation for using "x-" scheme names. [as proposed]

17. add a mailserver: URL to this document, which corresponds to
message/external-body with the "phantom body" URL encoded.
(if there is some consensus for this, we will need to define
the syntax). [as proposed]

18. Call it 'mail:' instead of 'mailserver:'. [alternative list]

19. Identify afs:, mid:, cid:, and other scheme prefixes that have
been mentioned but not specified here. (including tn3270, rlogin
if not reinstated). [really a style issue]

20. Put back in `tn3270' URLs in this document. [taken out without
clear sense of consensus]

21. Put back in `rlogin:' URLs in this document. [ditto]

22. Remove "#" as a character that is universally reserved, and
instead only reserve it in http, ftp, gopher, news. [universially
reserved without much discussion]

- Next message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: questions on URL draft"
- Previous message: Steven D. Majewski: "Re: sequence numbers ( was: (long) sketch of proposed imap: URL syntax ... )"
- Next in thread: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: questions on URL draft"
- Maybe reply: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: questions on URL draft"
- Reply: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: questions on URL draft"
- Maybe reply: Fisher Mark: "Re: questions on URL draft"
- Maybe reply: Mitra: "Re: questions on URL draft"
- Maybe reply: Margaret St. Pierre: "Re: questions on URL draft"
- Maybe reply: John Curran: "Re: questions on URL draft"