# Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix

Tim Berners-Lee (timbl@www3.cern.ch)
Fri, 3 Dec 93 10:55:43 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Randy Bush: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Previous message: Marc Andreessen: "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"

    Date: Fri, 3 Dec 93 10:55:43 +0100

    From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@www3.cern.ch>

    Message-Id: <9312030955.AA00895@www3.cern.ch>

    To: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush)

    Subject: Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix

Clarification..

>From: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush)
>
>> How about suggesting that in an RFC822 header context
>> that a specific header be used for URLs?
>>
>> Newsgroups: ietf.neverending.uri
>> URL: ftp://myhost/dir/file
>> Date: 1997 Mar 31 21:67
>>

>> but leave the URL syntax unencumbered.
>
>Useless. The article is not a URL, part of its content may be. And
there
>may be multiple URLs within the content, each with some assocuiated
context.

This is an example of an article which HAS a URL appart from the
one with which accesses it as news. I am saying that "URL:" is
apprpriate when a mail header is to be formed, but otherwise
not. It shouldn't be part of the URL.

Tim

- Next message: Randy Bush: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Previous message: Marc Andreessen: "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"