Re: news: vs. nntp://host (was RE: mailto: + parameters?)

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@beach.w3.org)
Fri, 26 Apr 1996 18:31:16 -0400


Message-Id: <m0uCw2n-0002UoC@beach.w3.org>
To: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: news: vs. nntp://host (was RE: mailto: + parameters?) 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 26 Apr 1996 17:46:26 CDT."
             <01I4080KK31U008MM5@SCI.WFBR.EDU> 
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 18:31:16 -0400
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>

In message <01I4080KK31U008MM5@SCI.WFBR.EDU>, Foteos Macrides writes:
>"Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org> wrote:
>>[...]
>>Please cite a source for this bit about the meaning of '#'. It may
>>well be in the specs, but I'd like to see which specs your invoking.
>>And even if it's in there, those specs need updating. They contain
>>some inconsistencies, mistakes, and bogus ideas like this one.
>>[...]
>
>	C'mon Dan!  "Show me the specs, but they're inconstistent,
>mistaken, and bogus."

Yup, that's what I'm saying. I want to see the evidence behind
your argument. I always do.

That, and I disagree with many of the decisions that were made
in the URL RFCs. Check the archives. I'm on record.

>  (so why bother?)

So we can get it straightened out! What else are we doing here?

Dan

p.s. I still haven't seen an instance where mailto:xxx?subject=yyy or
news://server/group cause the interoperability problems you alluded
to.