# Re: options, not nesting?

Mitra (mitra@path.net)
Thu, 28 Oct 1993 18:01:14 GMT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Michael Mealling: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Previous message: Martin Hamilton: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Maybe in reply to: Larry Masinter: "options, not nesting?"
- Next in thread: Ed Krol: "Re: options, not nesting?"

    From: mitra@path.net (Mitra)

    Subject: Re: options, not nesting?

    Message-Id: <CFMCq4.9r@pandora.sf.ca.us>

    Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 18:01:14 GMT

Yes! to optional information, but Yes also to nesting. I dont think that
anyone has proposed defining the set of information that must be carried in
a URM, but we do need the ability to specify whether meta information applies
to a URN or just to one of the URL's.

Any of the three formats proposed here (mine, Mike's or Ole's) will do that.

Peter - could this be done in the Whois++ format as well?

- Mitra

- Next message: Michael Mealling: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Previous message: Martin Hamilton: "Re: options, not nesting?"
- Maybe in reply to: Larry Masinter: "options, not nesting?"
- Next in thread: Ed Krol: "Re: options, not nesting?"