# Re: What URIs are and are not.

Erik Huizer (Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl)
Tue, 09 Nov 93 12:17:31 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Jim Fullton: "Lists for applications (fwd)"
- Previous message: John C Klensin: "Re: What URIs are and are not."
- In reply to: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: What URIs are and are not."

    Message-Id: <9311091117.AA08143@survival.surfnet.nl>

    To: timbl@nxoc01.cern.ch

    Subject: Re: What URIs are and are not.

    In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 09 Nov 93 11:28:48 +0100. <9311091028.AA08692@www3.cern.ch>

    Date: Tue, 09 Nov 93 12:17:31 +0100

    From: "Erik Huizer (SURFnet BV)" <Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl>

Tim,

> Your comments about the document are important.
> If the document is only comprehensible given a
> historical knowledge of the WG's wandering concept set, then it's no
> use to anybody. I felt that was probably because I had been shy of
> putting in the aims of the document. Was the rest of my
> message any use at setting the objectives? Should some of that
> go into the document itself?

> Perhaps you could point out specifically where the URI
> spec fails to state its objectives.

I saw the draft spec that Jim Fulton managed to write up during some
bar-bofs at the IETF. I think that looks pretty good and contains the
essential points from your earlier posting. I assume Jim will send it to
this list shortly. look at it and see if you can live with it.

Thanks,
Erik

- Next message: Jim Fullton: "Lists for applications (fwd)"
- Previous message: John C Klensin: "Re: What URIs are and are not."
- In reply to: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: What URIs are and are not."