# Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)

Ed Levinson (elevinso@Accurate.COM)
Fri, 03 Nov 1995 08:49:27 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Ed Levinson: "Re: CID: and MID: URL schemes"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: CID: and MID: URL schemes"
- In reply to: Barton E. Schaefer: "Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)"

    Message-Id: <9511031351.AA07309@Accurate.COM>

    To: uri@bunyip.com, ietf-822@list.cren.net

    Subject: Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 02 Nov 1995 11:24:03 PST."

                 <951102112403.ZM15461@zyrcon.z-code.com>

    Date: Fri, 03 Nov 1995 08:49:27 -0500

    From: Ed Levinson <elevinso@Accurate.COM>

Ned and Barton discussed the use of rfc822 domain-literal but wrt
the CID and MID urls the rfc1738 hostnumber have a different syntax
(no enclosing "[]"). Thus the proposed id-spec, if it included
hostnumber, would not map to a "reasonable" rfc822 addr-spec. Hence
the production id-spec := local-part "@" hostname seems an appropriate
restriction.

Thanks.../Ed

- Next message: Ed Levinson: "Re: CID: and MID: URL schemes"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: CID: and MID: URL schemes"
- In reply to: Barton E. Schaefer: "Re: host vs hostname (Was: CID: and MID: URL schemes)"