# Re: options, not nesting?

Mitra (mitra@path.net)
Sat, 30 Oct 1993 00:29:08 GMT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Thumbnail Sketch of the UR* Arena"
- Previous message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Data elements and other jazz"
- Maybe in reply to: Larry Masinter: "options, not nesting?"
- Next in thread: Peter Deutsch: "Re: options, not nesting?"

    From: mitra@path.net (Mitra)

    Subject: Re: options, not nesting?

    Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1993 00:29:08 GMT

    Message-Id: <CFopCL.LyH@pandora.sf.ca.us>

I'm with Mike on this, I dont mind whether URN's appear as
URN: urn:xxx.yyy:12345
or
URN: xxx.yyy:12345

but I do think the tag is URN or URL, not URI - the attribute tag
is "URN" its value is the urn of the object, ditto for the URL, these
elements have semantic meaning to the parser, since with the precedence
proposal meta-information following would apply to that URL. Nothing on
the right hand side (the values) should have semantic meaning to the
parser.

OTOH - Of the choices

URI: url:ftp://path.net...
URL: ftp://path.net...
ftp: //path.net...

I'd definately go for the middle choice, not the last. i.e.
ftp://path.net... is the value of the URL attribute, as opposed to
//path.net being the value of the URL: attribute.

- Mitra

- Next message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Thumbnail Sketch of the UR* Arena"
- Previous message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Data elements and other jazz"
- Maybe in reply to: Larry Masinter: "options, not nesting?"
- Next in thread: Peter Deutsch: "Re: options, not nesting?"