# Re: Minutes for URI

Erik Ostrom (eostrom@pepperoncini.gac.edu)
Tue, 23 Nov 1993 22:46:04 -0600

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Rich Wiggins: "Re: Minutes for URI"
- Previous message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: URL query"
- In reply to: Alan Emtage: "Re: Minutes for URI"
- Next in thread: Rich Wiggins: "Re: Minutes for URI"

    Message-Id: <9311240446.AA14002@gac.edu>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: Minutes for URI

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 21 Nov 1993 18:06:30 EST."

                 <9311212306.AA01886@mocha.bunyip.com>

    Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 22:46:04 -0600

    From: Erik Ostrom <eostrom@pepperoncini.gac.edu>

> Correct. The base URL definition contains the string "URL:" as its
> initial sequence.

Aw, this seems silly. If my application includes objects with a URL
attribute, I _know_ that it's going to be a URL; something like

URL: URL:http://foo.bar.com/hi-there.html

is just redundant.

Where the URL: prefix comes in handy is when you don't know whether
something is a URL or a URN or what. For example, I might embed a
link to the imaginary document <URL:http://foo.bar.com/hi-there.html>
right in this very paragraph. But "URL:" still doesn't look like part
of the URL; it's part of the link wrapper. (And actually I'd rather
use whitespace than a colon to separate the prefix from the
locator/name/whatever.)

There's also the backward compatibility problem if URL: is part of the
URL proper.

So why do we want URL: in the URL? I know people were opposed to it,
there must have been some pretty convincing arguments.

- Next message: Rich Wiggins: "Re: Minutes for URI"
- Previous message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: URL query"
- In reply to: Alan Emtage: "Re: Minutes for URI"
- Next in thread: Rich Wiggins: "Re: Minutes for URI"