# Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix

Rickard Schoultz (schoultz@sunet.se)
Thu, 02 Dec 93 14:53:21 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Simon E Spero: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Previous message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- In reply to: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Next in thread: Simon E Spero: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"

    Message-Id: <199312021353.OAA20426@sunic.sunet.se>

    To: timbl@nxoc01.cern.ch

    Subject: Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix

    In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 02 Dec 93 11:53:21 +0100.

                 <9312021053.AA02421@www3.cern.ch>

    Date: Thu, 02 Dec 93 14:53:21 +0100

    From: Rickard Schoultz <schoultz@sunet.se>

Tim Wrote:
[...]
>
> Issue: Should the string "URL:" be considered a mandatory
> initial string of any URL.
>
> Arguments (abbreviated .. as far as I can remeember.. )
>
> For: It is useful to be able to know when one has a URL.
> Like in plain text.
>
> Against: This is messy when you know what it is already,
> like in a "URL" field.
> so don't include the tag as PART of the URL
>
> For: But we need to know it isn't a URL when there are URNs
> around
>
> Against: URNs will have a specific prefix anyway.
>
> Against: The URL/URN distinction is not so clear anyway
>
> For: We must change this spec some way in case it settles down
>
> Against: No counterargument.

For: We need to recognize a URL as such without having to know
about other URI types like URCs, URFs etcetera.

(This is not a vote.)
-Rickard

- Next message: Simon E Spero: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Previous message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- In reply to: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"
- Next in thread: Simon E Spero: "Re: Minor clarification on url: prefix"