Re: Non-HTML URL Examples

lee@sq.com wrote:
> 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!

Yes.  Acknowledged.  This wasn't posted at you, but to be
clear because even if not explicit, from many postings, 
it is easy to imply even where the implication is mistaken.
HTML is ubiquitous, but not limiting.  I expect to be 
using it for a long time as I am a Microsoft user and 
developer and they are on public record for saying "we
recognize the HTML is the backbone of the Internet".
Since I don't choose the bricks for the house, I can't 
complain about the mortar.
> 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.

True, but they are also likely to be familiar with SGML and IMO, 
that is where many early XML adopters are likely to come from.  To 
me, this means that <a href= name= etc. should be expressible 
in XML *without change* just as the VRML examples must 
be expressible, but not without change (VRML is syntax-tight).  
The resistance will come from the other 99% of the world's SGML users.  

That is not my point. 

I only wanted to demonstrate a URL-capable language that does 
different things with the URL, particularly the use of the 
parameter fields or #hack and including a script as the value of a URL.
Also, I note the more difficult hub-capable languages are 
being defined and in use, so segments of the WWW author population 
are capable of much more complex authoring languages.
> Where XML offers _more_ functionality than HTML, obviously this isn't
> an issue.

True.  When selling it, that will be Item 1 at the top in 24 point
> 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.

This is absolutely the case.  I'm going blind reading them but I 
was already going blind.  Age.... :-)
> So the meaning of URLs (for example) has to be considered as deriving
> from a number of RFCs, not just one.  You know that already, but it
> is worth reminding the list.

Yes.  Without knowing the full range of implications of the URL, MIME, 
the http protocols, etc., it is not possible to know where baby and 
bathwater part company.