From: ccoprmm@oit.gatech.edu (Michael Mealling)
Message-Id: <199402171453.AA07090@oit.gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: Changes to URL document
To: timbl@www0.cern.ch
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 9:53:10 EST
In-Reply-To: <9402170935.AA04040@ptpc00.cern.ch>; from "Tim Berners-Lee" at Feb 17, 94 10:35 am
Tim Berners-Lee said this:
> > 5) The WG has decided that the "URL:" prefix is standard and this should be
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > made clear in the draft. Currently the only place that this appears is in
> > the BNF. It should rightly be part of the "Scheme" section which
> > currently makes no mention of it.
>
> Sorry, I wasn't clear to me that it had. Look at Larry Masinter's
> message of 17 Dec available as
> <http://www.acl.lanl.gov/URI/archive/uri-archive.messages/900.html>
> summaries the problems. My personal feeling is that this shouldn't hold
> us up as defining the URL itself is more important that its wrappers
> for plain text. But there seem to be a lot of suggestions about this.
> Do you regard prefix as part of the URL, or part of a wrapper for
> plain text use? Have I missed a roar of consent about this one?
I made a point to Larry a few months back that the URL functional
spec requires that it be recognizable. With that in mind, let's say
I have a bit stream comming at me. I'm now looking for the
wrapper '<'. I find one and then I start looking for 'URL:' so I can
find out if I have a URL or N. It seems to me that it really doesn't
matter what you call these: '<','>','URL:'. They are all required
to fulfill the functional spec for a URL, therefore it's all a URL.
Does that make sense?
I would like to put forth a slight show of support for finding another
wrapper character though. Have we thought about '{' and '}'?
-MM
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Mealling ! Hypermedia WWW, WAIS, and gopher will be Georgia Institute of Technology ! here soon via MIME. Your view of the Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu ! internet is about to change completely!