# Re: URL General Syntax and Protocols

Michael A. Dolan (miked@CERF.NET)
Sun, 07 Aug 1994 12:14:34 -0700

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Michael A. Dolan: "Re: URL News/NNTP"
- Previous message: Michael A. Dolan: "Re: URL Algorithm Specification"

    Message-Id: <199408071919.MAA18699@nic.cerf.net>

    Date: Sun, 07 Aug 1994 12:14:34 -0700

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

    From: miked@CERF.NET (Michael A. Dolan)

    Subject: Re: URL General Syntax and Protocols

At 08:12 PM 8/6/94 PDT, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> The prudent implementer would surely escape any characters left in
>> doubt; hence might as well spec it that way.
>
>We have discovered that a specification is significantly different
>from 'advice to prudent implementors'. Prudent implementors may well
>accept syntax that is in fact illegal, and might well avoid emitting
>syntax that is legal but possibly confusing to buggy implementations
>or readers.

The choice of implementors to provide sloppy syntax for historical or
other reasons should not drive the specification. A specification should
be clear and un-ambiguous about how to implement it. I guess we disagree,
but it is my opinion that the unsafe category should be removed.

>> 8. (3.8) What is the purpose/function of the telnet trailing slash ?
>
>It's widely accepted, but has no particular purpose. There is some
>possibility that extensions to telnet will allow additional syntax
>after the slash.

This seems inconsistent. On the one hand allowing for common usage
then *not* allowing other common usage, such as news:newsgroup/n1[-n2].
Seems the trailing slash should be dropped and if an implementor chooses
to tolerate historical syntax, so be it.

Someday when extensions to telnet are added, then add what is necessay,
which may or may not be a slash.

>> 9. (3.11) Is there a reference implementation of prospero ? Just
>> curious why this protocol is specified and (many) other ones are not.
>
>I think which protocols are specified is historical. prospero has been
>in the URL document for a long time. I'm not certain whether there is
>a reference implementation of prospero.

So was afs. Without a reference implementation, specifying a syntax and
algorithm is risky and it should probably be omitted. If someone wants
prospero then .... (see your comment below).

>> 12. (4) Any interest in including:
>> cso://[host[:port]][/arg=value[;arg=value]]
>
>I think this is reasonable for inclusion in a separate document which
>you use to register the 'cso' scheme.

I brought it up as an exception since it is currently in implied use today
in libwww gopher. In my thinking, it is more valid than prospero to be
included.
-----------------------------------------------
Michael A. Dolan - <mailto:miked@cerfnet.com>
TerraByte Technology (619) 445-9070, FAX -8864

- Next message: Michael A. Dolan: "Re: URL News/NNTP"
- Previous message: Michael A. Dolan: "Re: URL Algorithm Specification"