# Re: options, not nesting?

Peter Deutsch (peterd@bunyip.com)
Fri, 29 Oct 1993 13:29:08 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Mitra: "Re: Single protocol for UR*?"
- Previous message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Single protocol for UR*?"
- Maybe in reply to: Larry Masinter: "options, not nesting?"

    Message-Id: <9310291729.AA05899@expresso.bunyip.com>

    From: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>

    Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 13:29:08 -0400

    In-Reply-To: Martin Hamilton's message as of Oct 29, 14:30

    To: Martin Hamilton <M.T.Hamilton@lut.ac.uk>,

    Subject: Re: options, not nesting?

[ Martin wrote: ]

> Larry said:
. . .
> / Is anyone else balking at the apparent redundency of 'URI: URL:ftp://'?

I don't see any redundency. If you're refering to the
"URI: URL" pair, the LHS identifies an attribute name. The
RHS, starting after the `:', is the value of that
attribute, in this case a URL (which begins with the
string "URL:" to distinguish it from other types of URI
that can go here. Coincidentally, this is an example of
why we want the URL prefix).

If we start "knowing" about certain attributes and what
values they can have to allow us to eliminate prefixes I
see problems further down the pike. Or am I
misunderstanding you here?

- peterd

    --

- Next message: Mitra: "Re: Single protocol for UR*?"
- Previous message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Single protocol for UR*?"
- Maybe in reply to: Larry Masinter: "options, not nesting?"