# Re: Predraft of a new URL scheme: mailmsg

Jim Conklin (conklin@info.cren.net)
Wed, 4 Jan 1995 13:11:10 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: Predraft of a new URL scheme: mailmsg"
- Previous message: Jim Conklin: "Re: Library Standards and URIs"
- Maybe in reply to: Paul Hoffman: "Predraft of a new URL scheme: mailmsg"
- Next in thread: Dirk Herr-Hoyman: "Re: Predraft of a new URL scheme: mailmsg"

    Message-Id: <199501041811.NAA12835@info.cren.net>

    Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 13:11:10 -0500

    To: ietf-lists@proper.com (Paul Hoffman), uri@bunyip.com

    From: conklin@info.cren.net (Jim Conklin)

    Subject: Re: Predraft of a new URL scheme: mailmsg

At 4:48 PM 1/2/95 -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>In the URL spec, RFC1738, the "mailto" scheme is defined and is described as:
> ...
>I propose a new scheme, "mailmsg". A "mailmsg" URL takes the form:
>
> mailmsg:<rfc822-addr-spec>/<subject-text>/<context-text>
> ...
>- I avoided using the "mailserver" name ...
> ... [but] I'd certainly be willing to rename my proposed scheme as
>"mailserver" to reuse that name.

I'd been having very similar thoughts, Paul, and would encourage this.
I'd personally find "<body-text>" or "<message-text>" to be clearer than
"<context-text>".
I'd also prefer the "mailserver" name for it, because I believe that's a
more descriptive name for what's being done with your proposal. I either
missed or have repressed the earlier discussion on "mailserver", but I hope
it will be possible to use "mailserver" instead of "mailmsg".
I had wondered about the desirability of allowing for the specification
of required MIME headers in the URL (perhaps part of the earlier
discussion), but I agree that the proposal you've made handles everything I
know of, so I'm for it. Perhaps if others need that kind of information it
could be appended after <context-text>. If no one proposes the need and
format specifics, however, I'm not going to.

> ...
>- I'll put together a formal Internet draft of the proposal (with the
>obligatory BNF) after a few days of discussion about this "predraft". If
>RFC1738 gets updated in the next year or two, the draft and associated
>comments can be folded into it if people here agree that that would be a
>Good Thing.

Certainly a Good Thing in my book! Thanks!

Jim

- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: Predraft of a new URL scheme: mailmsg"
- Previous message: Jim Conklin: "Re: Library Standards and URIs"
- Maybe in reply to: Paul Hoffman: "Predraft of a new URL scheme: mailmsg"
- Next in thread: Dirk Herr-Hoyman: "Re: Predraft of a new URL scheme: mailmsg"