# Re: Version 5 of URL draft

Dave Brooks (dob@inel.gov)
Wed, 27 Jul 1994 08:37:07 -0600

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Mark P. McCahill: "Re: Version 5 of URL draft"
- Previous message: John Martin: "Re: Version 5 of URL draft"

    Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 08:37:07 -0600

    Message-Id: <9407271437.AA06023@coop.inel.gov>

    From: dob@inel.gov (Dave Brooks)

    To: masinter@parc.xerox.com, uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: Version 5 of URL draft

    In-Reply-To: <94Jul26.133457pdt.2760@golden.parc.xerox.com>

Larry Masinter writes:
> Open issue:
>
> Mitra has pointed out that there is an ambiguity of how a gopher: URL
> should be interpreted in the case where there is a gopher+ string and
> there is not a search: should the client send to the server one or two
> tabs, and on what basis should it determine this? Does it need to
> look at the gophertype to determine whether this URL denotes a search?

If an item is Gopher+ and NOT a search, then the client sends

<gophertype><selector>%09<gopher+_string>

If the item is Gopher+ and is a search, then the client sends

<gophertype><selector>%09<search>%09<gopher+_string>

as shown in 3.4.1. The other entries in 3.4.1 are also correct; just add
the one above.

I don't understand the statement in 3.4.3 that the search string can be
empty. I'm sorry if we've discussed this already, but as a Gopher client
author it doesn't make sense to me.

Best regards,
Dave

- Next message: Mark P. McCahill: "Re: Version 5 of URL draft"
- Previous message: John Martin: "Re: Version 5 of URL draft"