Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 09:59:25 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: FTP syntax
To: Mitra <mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us>
In-Reply-To: <CMBABn.Kx@pandora.sf.ca.us>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.05.9403080909.C1792-b100000@suna>
On Mon, 7 Mar 1994, Mitra wrote:
> I'd like us to consider the syntax
> so as to avoid breaking existing URL's unneccessarily.
>
> <url:ftp://ftp.path.net/one/two/three:binary>
>
> So that it's absence would indicate an old-stype URL, and that the
> client was on its own at guessing what it was.
>
Erm, I maybe missing something here, but is your suggestion likely to
break existing FTP URLs itself? Imagine I've got a file called
``three:binary'' in the directory ``/one/two''. Won't that currently use
the same URL as is mentioned above?
Anyway, this FTP URL thing recently has me confused. I thought we'd gone
through it all before Christmas and reached some sort of concensus.
Obviously not.
Jon
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jon Knight, Research Student in High Performance Networking and Distributed
Systems in the Department of _Computer_Studies_ at Loughborough University.
* Its not how big your share is, its how much you share that's important. *