# Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes

Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Sun, 26 Nov 1995 23:53:59 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Previous message: Renato Iannella: "Re[2]: URN: vs alternatives"
- In reply to: Larry Masinter: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Next in thread: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"

    Message-Id: <199511262253.XAA08164@dale.uninett.no>

    From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no

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

    Subject: Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 26 Nov 1995 09:35:28 PST." <95Nov26.093535pst.2733@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 23:53:59 +0100

Thanks - the relative-URL stuff should be in place by the time you
read this (unless you work Sunday nights....)

I don't know exactly how to phrase the difference between "interactive
URLs" and "noninteractive URLs" (consider chat Web pages!!!), but
I think your general concern is more or less in tune with the "what
operations does this object permit?" question.

I'll try to invent some creative language for encoding rules.
Extensibility - now THERE's a painful subject!
I'll let that one rest for a while, unless you can come up with a
language suggestion, and look at it again in a month or so.

Looking forward to seeing you in Dallas!

Harald

- Next message: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Previous message: Renato Iannella: "Re[2]: URN: vs alternatives"
- In reply to: Larry Masinter: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Next in thread: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"