# Re: mailserver scheme, third round

Paul Hoffman (ietf-lists@proper.com)
Mon, 16 Jan 1995 10:06:07 -0800

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: mailserver scheme, third round"
- Previous message: Paul Hoffman: "mailserver scheme, third round"
- Maybe in reply to: Paul Hoffman: "mailserver scheme, third round"
- Next in thread: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: mailserver scheme, third round"

    Message-Id: <ab40657305021003bac7@[165.227.40.14]>

    Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 10:06:07 -0800

    To: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>

    From: ietf-lists@proper.com (Paul Hoffman)

    Subject: Re: mailserver scheme, third round

At 9:39 AM 1/16/95, Daniel W. Connolly wrote:
>As long as we're not using the mailto: name, I suggest we use the
>same name that the MIME spec gives to this functionality, i.e.
>mail-server.

That would have been a good idea before RFC1738 was submitted, but I think
it is unwise now that "mailserver" (unhyphenated) is already a reserved
name there.

>Wherever possible, I think the MIME external-body access type
>namespace and the URI scheme namespace should coincide. It seems silly
>to have different names for the same functionality -- or even worse --
>different functionality by the same name.

I agree completely. We should keep an eye out for this in future URL scheme
names. It is unfortunate that we didn't do that in this case six months
ago.

--Paul Hoffman
--Proper Publishing

- Next message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: mailserver scheme, third round"
- Previous message: Paul Hoffman: "mailserver scheme, third round"
- Maybe in reply to: Paul Hoffman: "mailserver scheme, third round"
- Next in thread: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: mailserver scheme, third round"