# Re: Snapshot of URL

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Thu, 24 Mar 1994 20:08:50 PST

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: URL: Outstanding issues"
- Previous message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: URI position statement"

    To: timbl@www0.cern.ch

    In-Reply-To: timbl@ptpc00.cern.ch's message of Thu, 24 Mar 1994 10:29:15 -0800 <94Mar24.102927pst.2735@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Subject: Re: Snapshot of URL

    From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>

    Message-Id: <94Mar24.200902pst.2732@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: 	Thu, 24 Mar 1994 20:08:50 PST

Comments on the current URL draft:

rlogin:

maybe I'm imagining something, but didn't we decide to flush 'rlogin'?

mailto semantics:

It says:
> This semantics may be considered to be that the object referred to
> by the mailto: URL is the set of messages sent to or from that
> address. There is no algorithm to retrieve this set, but the SMTP
> protocol allows messages to be added to it, and any given user may
> be aware of a subset of its members.

I don't think this is true! Any more than 'telnet:' refers to the set
of bytes sent from or to the host designated. That is, all 'mailto:'
refers to is an internet mailing address, whether it is a person, a
mailing list or whatever is not part of the URL.

There is no semantics or definition for MID or CID addresses. Again,
am I missing something? Are these new?

> ftptype

You have A | I | D, while I thought were were talking about 'text',
'binary' and 'directory'.

- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: URL: Outstanding issues"
- Previous message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: URI position statement"