# Re: URL revision

Peter Deutsch (peterd@bunyip.com)
Mon, 25 Jul 1994 10:41:19 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: URL revision"
- Previous message: Stephen R. van den Berg: "Re: Mailserver URL proposal"
- Next in thread: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: URL revision"
- Reply: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: URL revision"

    Message-Id: <9407251441.AA03381@expresso.bunyip.com>

    From: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>

    Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 10:41:19 -0400

    In-Reply-To: "Roy T. Fielding"'s message as of Jul 25,  4:08

    To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@simplon.ICS.UCI.EDU>

    Subject: Re: URL revision

Hi all,

I trust those of you who are meeting in swinging Toronto
are enjoying the fun. Sorry I couldn't make it, but Alan
makes me stay home and write contracts... :-(

[ Roy T. Fielding wrote: ]

> Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com> wrote:
> >
> > So, does that mean we can drop those silly double slashes?? :-) :-)
>
> No, because they (or some syntactic equivalent) are required to
> differentiate between relative and absolute URLs. :-|

Actually, I really did mean my comment as a joke, since as
far as I'm concerned the debate on such issues should be
considered closed so we can issue the draft doc. Still,
since you are the second person to contact me who seems to
think I meant it, I feel I'd better respond. I am _not_
proposing that we drop the double slash. I think it's
wrong to have them, but it's a historical artifact and I
can live with it.

I do want to say a word to the issue of relative URLs.
The output of this working group is designed to be used by
a wide variety of systems and protocols. In particular, at
least some of us (and perhaps all of us?) hope that a
standardized URL will promote interoperability among
Internet information systems. Now, although WWW _may_ allow
relative URLs, it is my understanding that the working
group decided not to support them, as without a specific
context (as is available in WWW) they are basically
unusable at this time.

If we really want to promote interoperability then I think
we should plan on a comprehensive study of the issues
involved here before embarking on the task of specifying a
syntax for relative URLs. I do understand that they have
proved useful in WWW, but this is _not_ a working group to
standardize WWW practice. What we come up with must be
usable throughout the Internet, and I think we would need
a bit more study and consensus before tackling this
particular task.

- peterd

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "It is a mistake to think that [the mind] has elastic walls and can distend to
     any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time where for every addition of
     knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest
     importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful
     ones".
                      Sherlock Holmes, in "A Study in Scarlet" by A.C. Doyle...

            How true this is. Sadly, I must report that I still know all
            the words to the "Gilligans' Island" theme song...
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Next message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: URL revision"
- Previous message: Stephen R. van den Berg: "Re: Mailserver URL proposal"
- Next in thread: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: URL revision"
- Reply: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: URL revision"