Re: Non-HTML URL Examples

Len wrote:

> 1.  The use of the URL in XML is not bounded by the 
> use of the URL in HTML.   It is bounded by the RFCs.
> No one disputes this although the argument has 
> been presented several times that getting to 
> far beyond HTML's use may impair XML marketability.

Hmm, I haven't heard that argument, although I know that you
thought I was making it at one point.  I certainly wasn't trying to!

I _did_ say that we will be asked to explain why we did things
differently from HTML, by a great many people who are using HTML and
who start to consider XML.  Where there are satisfactory answers (e.g.
the improvements in comment syntax, or the new syntax for EMPTY elements)
I don't think there will be any difficulty at all.  If we were to adopt
a syntax that was different without clear and adequate reason, I do
see that it might be an impediment, not because XML must replace HTML,
but because people coming to XML for _any_ reason are likely to be familiar
with HTML.

Where XML offers _more_ functionality than HTML, obviously this isn't
an issue.

Finally, note that some of the RFCs are written in the knowledge of others.
For example, we agreed to omit many things from RFC1866 because they
were covered elsewhere -- for example, MIME parameters on URLS in HTML,
or the meaning of http-equiv fields which are covered by the HTTP spec.

So the meaning of URLs (for example) has to be considered as deriving
froma number of RFCs, not just one.  You know that already, but it
is worth reminding the list.