# Re: Wrappers for URLs

John Curran (jcurran@nic.near.net)
Sat, 08 May 1993 13:04:25 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Ed Krol: "Re: Internet Draft on URNs"
- Previous message: Keith Moore: "Re: Wrappers for URLs"
- In reply to: Keith Moore: "Re: Wrappers for URLs"
- Next in thread: Marc Andreessen: "Re: Wrappers for URLs"
- Reply: Marc Andreessen: "Re: Wrappers for URLs"

    Message-Id: <9305081704.AA10311@mocha.bunyip.com>

    To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>

    Subject: Re: Wrappers for URLs

    In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 07 May 1993 21:45:02 -0400.

                 <9305080145.AA05811@wilma.cs.utk.edu>

    Date: Sat, 08 May 1993 13:04:25 -0400

    From: John Curran <jcurran@nic.near.net>

--------
] From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
] Subject: Re: Wrappers for URLs
] Date: Fri, 07 May 1993 21:45:02 -0400
]
] To: jak@violet.berkeley.edu (John A. Kunze)
] Subject: Re: Wrappers for URLs
] Date: Thu, 6 May 93 18:50:24 +0100
]
] > How about just suggesting that in plain text when other conventions
] > are not applicable, the URL be wrapped in say <>'s especially if
] > it has to break lines. (Otherwise it can be wrapped in blanks!)
]
] This seems like a reasonable compromise.
] ...

This _does_ seem like a reasonable comprise which solves the
printed representation problems. This does not address the question
of represenation of spaces in URLs, which is apparently desired by
many members of our community.

If the use of space in URL elements is going to be popular, that we
should explore a convention for mapping spaces to a more readable
representation than %20. The reason for exploring such a convention
is to provide improved readability for non-silca life forms. We all
recognize that people shouldn't be necessarily be decoding URLs, but
it's going to happen despite any admonitions.

We can select any character for space representation, as long as
we recognize that we are eternally condemming said character to an
inferior representation (%xx). Some characters that would not make
good choices for this honor include period (used in hostnames) and
slashes (used in filenames).

My choice would be underscore, but then again I do not use it with
any regularity. If anyone has strong reasons that underscores should
be spared (or even better, recommendations for an alternate victim),
please speak up.

/John

- Next message: Ed Krol: "Re: Internet Draft on URNs"
- Previous message: Keith Moore: "Re: Wrappers for URLs"
- In reply to: Keith Moore: "Re: Wrappers for URLs"
- Next in thread: Marc Andreessen: "Re: Wrappers for URLs"
- Reply: Marc Andreessen: "Re: Wrappers for URLs"