Message-Id: <m0uCw2n-0002UoC@beach.w3.org> To: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu> Cc: email@example.com 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" <firstname.lastname@example.org> In message <01I4080KK31U008MM5@SCI.WFBR.EDU>, Foteos Macrides writes: >"Daniel W. Connolly" <email@example.com> 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.