# Minor clarification on url: prefix

Mitra (mitra@path.net)
Wed, 1 Dec 1993 21:59:00 GMT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Larry Masinter: "String Equality for determining URN equality?"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "use of URNs for caching?"

    From: mitra@path.net (Mitra)

    Subject: Minor clarification on url: prefix

    Message-Id: <CHDMEC.10G@pandora.sf.ca.us>

    Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 21:59:00 GMT

I wanted to clarify something around the addition of "url:" to the front of
the uri. I was one of those objecting but was willing to go with the
consensus - and strongly expressed needs of people like PeterD to be
able to search even structured text for URL's.

My objections to the prefix for non free-text situations were mainly that
in many non-free-text situations we know explicitly that something is
a URL.

I'm really disliking looking at things like

URL: url:ftp://ftp.path.net/pub

In Gopher attribute information, its ugly and redundant, however -
since we no longer have white-space in URL's (decision Houston IETF).
Do I presume that .

URL: ftp://ftp.path.net/pub

would stull be a valid URL, i.e. the "URL:" prefix is present, but
seperated from the rest of the URL by non-significant white space.

Note that stripping the white space is not allowed in the context I'm
thinking of, because the thing on the left is a attribute, and the
thing on the right is a value, and in rfc822 style headers that white
space is mandatory.

- Mitra

- Next message: Larry Masinter: "String Equality for determining URN equality?"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "use of URNs for caching?"