Re: URLs, URIs, and references

Peter Deutsch (peterd@bunyip.com)
Mon, 24 May 1993 22:25:17 -0400

Message-Id: <9305250225.AA03986@expresso.bunyip.com>
From: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 22:25:17 -0400
In-Reply-To: Brian Capouch's message as of May 24, 17:52
To: Brian Capouch <brianc@saintjoe.EDU>, uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Re: URLs, URIs, and references

[ You wrote: ]
. . .
> I, for one, am coming around more every day to the notion of ditching
> gopher+, settling on a uniform type distinction for both the object and
> its directory entry (i.e., both the selector and the directory entry
> would be of type "I") and building what I need on top of plain ole
> gopher.

I was disappointed that the Gopher guys at UMinn missed
the change to integrate MIME into the new Gopher+. It
wouldn't have been that hard and I think this was their one
biggest failing.

Of course Gopher+ has other problems. I also think that
they could have done a far more generalized version of
their attribute stuff, using some standardized templates
and giving the client a better means for selecting a whole
set at a time. They were apparently unaware of the work
being done by various IETF groups to standardize templates
and didn't consider it. Yet Another Registry Authority
(YARA) was also a "Bad Idea (tm)".

Oh yeah, they left off one '+', as well... :-)

I know that Mark McCahill and the UMinn gang are following
the URI work (Mark is on this list) and they have pledged
to merge in URx support once we freeze things (another
argument for taking a snapshot of URLs and URNs and
getting things out. A lot of people want this stuff to so
they can get on with things).

I understand that Mark will be at the next IETF meeting in
Amsterdam. People will have a chance to talk to him there.

- peterd

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Peter Deutsch,                                  (514) 875-8611  (phone)
  Bunyip Information Systems Inc.                     (514) 875-8134  (fax)
    <peterd@bunyip.com>

"Charging for information is not a crime, any more than charging for food is a crime. On the other hand, I agree that letting people _starve_ is a crime." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------