Date: Thu, 7 Oct 93 09:13:20 +0100
From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@www3.cern.ch>
Message-Id: <9310070813.AA00700@www3.cern.ch>
To: mitra@path.net (Mitra)
Subject: Re: URL paper final edits
From: mitra@path.net (Mitra)
>Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 20:36:27 GMT
>
>Tim,
>
>Is the URL draft:
>
>ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-uri-01.txt
>
>the latest thing you have, it appears to be the same as the one at
>
>ftp://info.cern.ch/..../url6.txt
>
>
>
>The reason I ask, is that while it is dated July 14th (in the middle
of the
>last IETF meeting), the footers on the pages are from March 1993.
and
>there are a number of things in it, which I believed have been
changed.
Yes, it is the latest I have made: I edited on my
notebook at the IETF. I forgot to change the date
in the headers and footers.
>If this is the latest version, then I'll produce a detailed list of
the (mostly
>minor) discrepancies with what I believe has been decided.
Thanks, that would be useful.
What status has "mailto:" got? I can't remember whether it
was discussed in Amsterdam. There was a consensus in the WWW
community (the confernece in Cambridge MA 2 weeks after the
IETF, and www-talk@info.cern.ch) that "mailto:" was necessary
for all kinds of references people need to make to email
addresses, typically for referring to mailing lists, for
attributing authorship, etc. The syntax is clearly "mailto:"
followed by an Internet mail address. What RFC(s) in fact
currently define a mail address?
Any objections from anyone on this list to allowing
mail addresses to be a subset of URLs?
>Chris - can you put a (hopefully short) agenda item on the IETF
agenda to go
>over outstanding minor points. I hope these can all be cleared up on
the list
>before Houston, since I think we decisions have been made on almost
everything,
>and we just need to get the wording correct before this moves to RFC
status.
I agree. I am contemplating not going to Houston, in fact.
So I'd like to get it cleared up online.
Tim
>- Mitra