# Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes

Roy T. Fielding (fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU)
Tue, 28 Nov 1995 19:45:36 -0800

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Previous message: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- In reply to: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Next in thread: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Reply: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"

    To: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no

    Subject: Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 26 Nov 1995 23:30:11 +0100."

                 <199511262230.XAA07978@dale.uninett.no>

    Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 19:45:36 -0800

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

    Message-Id:  <9511281945.aa24567@paris.ics.uci.edu>

> 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?

The above is quite clear. I don't understand this last one:

> <li> Are there ways of using pieces of the information inside it
> that implementations are supposed to get right?

....Roy

- Next message: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Previous message: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- In reply to: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Next in thread: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Reply: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"