# Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes

Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Sun, 26 Nov 1995 23:30:11 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: William Y. Arms: "URNs: syntax and registries"
- Previous message: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- In reply to: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Next in thread: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Reply: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"

    Message-Id: <199511262230.XAA07978@dale.uninett.no>

    From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no

    To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>

    Subject: Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 25 Nov 1995 02:09:15 PST." <9511250209.aa06921@paris.ics.uci.edu>

    Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 23:30:11 +0100

Roy,
here's what I added.
Do you think it is clear enough?

Harald

<h2>Is it relative-URL compatible?</h2>
Many applications know and love relative URLs. Therefore, the
following questions must be asked:
<ul>
<li> Can it be parsed according to RFC 1808 - that is, if the tokens
"//", "/", ";", "?" and "#" are used, do they have the meaning
given in RFC 1808?
<li> Does it make sense to use it in relative URLs like those RFC
1808 specifies?
<li> Are there ways of using pieces of the information inside it
that implementations are supposed to get right?
</ul>

- Next message: William Y. Arms: "URNs: syntax and registries"
- Previous message: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- In reply to: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Next in thread: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Reply: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"