On Wed, 29 Jan 1997 18:27:47 -0800 (PST),
Terry Carroll <carroll@tjc.com> wrote:
> On 29 Jan 1997, Justin Sheehy wrote:
>> Better yet, include them in the RFC-correct form:
>> <URL:http://some.url.com/>
> Which RFC is that?
1738
> One objection I have to that is that it's not eas easily readable. The
> "<URL: ... >" adds no information to "http://some.url.com" and is awkward
> when writing text to be read by humans, as opposed to by machines.
I agree; also, the RFC gives me the impression that the URL: prefix is
just a recommendation for when there could be confusion about what
type of URI or other, uh, gizmo you're dealing with. Still, they use
this notation consistently in the RFC, too.
/* era */
-- See <http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/~reriksso/> for mantra, disclaimer, etc. * If you enjoy getting spam, I'd appreciate it if you'd register yourself at the following URL: <http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/~reriksso/spam.html>
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved