# Vetting rules for UR* schemes

Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Fri, 24 Nov 1995 11:41:16 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Al Gilman: "Re: Multipart/alternate as root in Multipart/related"
- Previous message: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: mailserver: vs. expanded mailto: URL"
- Next in thread: Larry Masinter: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Reply: Larry Masinter: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Reply: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"

    From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no

    Message-Id: <9511241041.AA20837@mocha.bunyip.com>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Vetting rules for UR* schemes

    Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 11:41:16 +0100

In a fit of frustration over the lack of evaluation criteria for UR*
schemes, I wrote some.

See http://domen.uninett.no/~hta/ietf/apps/url-schemes.html

Comments, changes, flames?

I'm not planning an RFC on this; I think that my "things to think about"
documents are better placed on the Net, where I can change them every time
I change my mind. "Current practice", if not always "best"....

Harald

- Next message: Al Gilman: "Re: Multipart/alternate as root in Multipart/related"
- Previous message: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no: "Re: mailserver: vs. expanded mailto: URL"
- Next in thread: Larry Masinter: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Reply: Larry Masinter: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"
- Reply: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Vetting rules for UR* schemes"