Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 18:54:11 -0500
Message-Id: <199409152354.SAA11955@boombox.micro.umn.edu>
From: "Mark P. McCahill" <mpm@boombox.micro.umn.edu>
To: Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu, clw@mocha.bunyip.com,
Subject: Re: The <URL: Wrapper take 2
In message <199409151931.PAA05252@oit.gatech.edu> Michael Mealling writes:
> Chris Weider said this:
> > Larry:
> > I think I'm going to be a hard nosed dude here: This is the first
> > objection
> > I've seen publicly raised to an issue that in my mind was settled more than
> > a year ago, I haven't seen any compelling arguments against wrappers
I haven't either...
> > (sorry Dan) and I've already done my compromising on this :^) I think
> > we should leave it in.
>
> I second this. Most of the objections have been that it doesn't currently
> work with any existing code. That's not the purpose of an RFC. If we
> wanted to rubber stamp current web practice then we would never have formed
> the URI working group in the first place.
exactly.
> Currently its in the Appendix and we
> have concensus of over 99% of the folx on the list.
yes.
> I even have a version
> of Mosaic that does handle the URL: if the user puts it in there. It ended
> up only being two additional lines of code.
>
That sounds about right. This is not hard to accomodate, and it gives some
guidance (a reccommendation) on how to wrap up URLs in plain text. The
reccommendation will help move the implimentations toward wrapping URLs
in plain text in a more consistent fashion, and this will benefit everyone.
Mark P. McCahill gopherspace engineer
mpm@boombox.micro.umn.edu University of Minnesota
612 625 1300 612 625 6817 (fax)