Message-Id: <9311282324.AA15643@mocha.bunyip.com>
From: bajan@bunyip.com (Alan Emtage)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1993 18:24:51 -0500
In-Reply-To: Erik Ostrom's message as of Nov 23, 22:46
To: Erik Ostrom <eostrom@pepperoncini.gac.edu>, uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Re: Minutes for URI
[Erik Ostrom <eostrom@pepperoncini.gac.edu> writes:]
> So why do we want URL: in the URL? I know people were opposed to it,
> there must have been some pretty convincing arguments.
If memory serves, the final argument that shifted the balance was:
In order to pick up URL's in free text (eg, a mail message) it would
have to be tagged. Otherwise the scanner would have to be able to
recognize every possible URL access method. This was considered
infeasible.
I believe that somebody also made the point that if we were going to have
the other UR* prefixed (URN: for example) then it seem for consistency
that URL: would be the way to go.
-- -Alan------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alan Emtage, "The Left in Canada is more gauche Bunyip Information Systems, than sinister" Montreal, CANADA -The Economist
bajan@bunyip.com Voice: +1 (514) 875-8611 Fax: +1 (514) 875-8134