# Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs... (

Mitra (mitra@path.net)
Sat, 9 Oct 1993 19:56:01 GMT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- Previous message: Michael Mealling: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."

    From: mitra@path.net (Mitra)

    Subject: Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs... (

    Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1993 19:56:01 GMT

    Message-Id: <CEnBDF.1Jx@pandora.sf.ca.us>

Personally I like the current proposal - i.e. ftp:, wais: gopher: urn:

but...

It wouldnt hurt for systems such as xmosaic to recognize (and strip)
"URL:" at the beginning of a url. Hopefully they are clever enough to
handle other user errors sensibly (sensibly in my mind does not mean
rejecting things which can be unambiguously interpreted).

I think we need to remember that a wrapper is NOT part of the URL. The
wrapper is part of the enclosing item which says - here is a URL. I
think we can, and should, recommend that the wrapper of <...> be used,
but it's going to be context sensitive, for example ...

In the entry field of Xmosaic, its asking you for a URL and has the
whole thing enclosed in a box, no need for any wrapper.

In a RFC 822 type header its not needed, because it would typically be
represented ...
Name: A thing thing you might want to look at
URL: ftp://path.net/some-file

Whereas, in free text you will want to say . Take a look at
<ftp://path.net/some-file>

Regarding "URC:" - we havent decid what they contain, never mind how
they are written. There have been at least two proposals (Michael
Mealing's and the discussion at IETF - the details of neither of which I
remember). But since a URC is likely to contain one or more URL's or
URN's its unclear that it will be prefixed with URC:

- Mitra

- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."
- Previous message: Michael Mealling: "Re: The URN: wrapper and URLs..."