# Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix

Mitra (mitra@path.net)
Thu, 2 Dec 1993 20:29:33 GMT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Randy Bush: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Previous message: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Maybe in reply to: Tim Berners-Lee: "Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Next in thread: Randy Bush: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Reply: Randy Bush: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"

    From: mitra@path.net (Mitra)

    Subject: Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix

    Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 20:29:33 GMT

    Message-Id: <CHFCxA.A5J@pandora.sf.ca.us>

Tim Berners-Lee (timbl@www3.cern.ch) wrote:
: Hey, Mitra, I understood that you were FOR the prefix.

No Tim, I was against the prefix - except in free text, and stated so
strongly at the Amsterdam meeting, howevever, I am also against
endlessly re-opening old debates, and so accept the general consensus
of hte meeting, and want to move on to more important things with a
definition that we can work with.

My question is still outstanding .... Does anyone think that

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

does NOT conform to the decision of Houston, and that white space
after the "URL:" is illegal. If noone objects, then you'll start
seeing these in gopher's soon !

Of course - if noone is willing to let go of their own preferences in
favour of the groups, then you'll never see URL's (even less URN's or
URC's) in anything but WWW!

- Mitra

- Next message: Randy Bush: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Previous message: Rob Raisch, The Internet Company: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Maybe in reply to: Tim Berners-Lee: "Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Next in thread: Randy Bush: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Reply: Randy Bush: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"