# Re: options, not nesting?

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Fri, 29 Oct 1993 02:07:34 PDT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Peter Deutsch: "Single protocol for UR*?"
- Previous message: Martin Hamilton: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Next in thread: Michael Mealling: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Reply: Michael Mealling: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Reply: Martin Hamilton: "Re: options, not nesting?"

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    In-Reply-To: M.T.Hamilton@lut.ac.uk's message of Thu, 28 Oct 1993 15:56:23 -0700 <93Oct28.155628pdt.2796@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Subject: Re: options, not nesting?

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

    Message-Id: <93Oct29.020743pdt.2795@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: 	Fri, 29 Oct 1993 02:07:34 PDT

Perhaps the details of this weren't meant to be critiqued, but:

The 'Pages: 5' field might be different for different representations.
(E.g., the same paper, in postscript, formatted for US Letter and A4
size paper). And some formats might not have any 'pages'.

You *do* want

Format: application/postscript

I hope and not

Format: Postscript

Is Size always size-in-bytes?

Is anyone else balking at the apparent redundency of 'URI: URL:ftp://'?

One question for these attributes is which of them are strings and
which are identifiers that should be assigned by the IANA. Format: and
Language: are identifiers (represented by a strings, but you should
use X-nnnn if you are using an identifier which isn't registered).

On the other hand, Author-Name is a string.

Will we standardize on a format for Author-Name? Last name first,
first name, initial? (I think not, but just to point out that it IS an
issue).

- Next message: Peter Deutsch: "Single protocol for UR*?"
- Previous message: Martin Hamilton: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Next in thread: Michael Mealling: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Reply: Michael Mealling: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Reply: Martin Hamilton: "Re: options, not nesting?"