# Re: what good is a URL without type information?

Fred Swartz (fred.swartz@umich.edu)
Mon, 25 Oct 1993 17:11:48 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Mark P. McCahill: "Re: what good is a URL without type information?"
- Previous message: Mitra: "Re: URN definition -- a way out?"
- In reply to: John A. Kunze: "Re: what good is a URL without type information?"
- Next in thread: Mark P. McCahill: "Re: what good is a URL without type information?"

    Message-Id: <9310252111.AA06008@merit.edu>

    To: jak@violet.berkeley.edu (John A. Kunze)

    From: "Fred Swartz" <fred.swartz@umich.edu>

    Subject: Re: what good is a URL without type information?

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 25 Oct 1993 11:39:50 PDT."

                 <199310251839.LAA00777@violet.berkeley.edu>

    Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 17:11:48 -0400

> From: jak@violet.berkeley.edu (John A. Kunze)
> To: jcurran@nic.near.net, masinter@parc.xerox.com
>> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 01:17:20 -0400
>> From: John Curran <jcurran@nic.near.net>
>>
>> Practically speaking, there's little gained and significant functionality
>> lost by not including "type" information in URLs.
>
>The problem is the entire UR* architecture implodes.
>
>This in no way minimizes the importance of "type" discrimination,
>which I think we all agree is a very high priority.

To avoid the extra overhead for URN->URL mapping, caching URLs with
URNs was proposed. Aside from certain problems this may create,
would the caching of TYPE along with the URL be a sufficient
improvement. It certainly wouldn't help those applications that
start with URLs, but might for those using URNs.

-- Fred

- Next message: Mark P. McCahill: "Re: what good is a URL without type information?"
- Previous message: Mitra: "Re: URN definition -- a way out?"
- In reply to: John A. Kunze: "Re: what good is a URL without type information?"
- Next in thread: Mark P. McCahill: "Re: what good is a URL without type information?"