# wrapped URLs

Jim McBeath (redback!jimmc@eskimo.com)
Thu, 2 Dec 93 12:08:37 PST

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Michael Mealling: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Previous message: Keith Moore: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"

    Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 12:08:37 PST

    From: redback!jimmc@eskimo.com (Jim McBeath)

    Message-Id: <9312022008.AA18173@redback.>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: wrapped URLs

In HTML docs, we can already unambiguously locate the URLs (in <a> anchors),
and we know that's what they are (or are people saying this will change
when URNs are rolled out?). My understanding is that the URL prefix is
desirable in order to be able to pick out a URL in free text. Seems to me
like this is the next layer up in the syntax: a WURL (wrapped URL)
(well, at least it's a FLA instead of another TLA :-) ).

WURL := Prefix URL Postfix
Prefix := U R L : "
Postfix := "

or whatever. Then it boils down to agreeing on the best Prefix and Postfix
for the WURL.

So does it make sense to keep the current syntax for URLs and called
the wrapped URL something else? Then the discussion could be redirected
towards where one should use a URL vs. where one should use a WURL.

Forgive me if I'm being naive, I wasn't at Houston or Amsterdam to hear
all the discussions. My understanding is based on the last 3/4Mb of
the uri mailing list.

Sticking URL: in front of a URL when you already know what it is seems
a bit strange to me.

-Jim McBeath
USER:jimmc@FQDN:eskimo.com :-)

- Next message: Michael Mealling: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Previous message: Keith Moore: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"