Re: Automatic Entry and Forms

Adam Jack (
Mon, 26 Feb 1996 18:42:12 -0500 (EST)

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 18:42:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Adam Jack <>
Subject: Re: Automatic Entry and Forms 
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960226183416.1657A-100000@singhi>

On Mon, 26 Feb 1996 wrote:

> Adding new attributes is easy. In the dim and distant past several attributes 
> would be added in a single day.
> Changing the semantics of an existing attribute is a very differnt matter 
> however.
I can buy that. I would guess that many browsers would silently
handled URI#NAME, but whatever. Having a separate attribute stops
existing forms from confusing browsers.

> >I am trying to see your point - but failing. Any name that is LISP code
> >is unlikely to appear in any template, correct? So what clashes here?
> The Whitehouse server has a lot of template names such as 
> "subject(user foo)" Some of this is trully wierd. Its not the 
> only wierdness out there.

It is a wierd and wacky world. So? I still miss your point.

> >Personally I fit into the 6 fields category of person - but that is 
> >almost an aside.  I wonder -- do we all think it is 6? If so - hell,
> >lets spend a few days voting on names forget templates and be done
> >with it. Templates allow extensibility into areas that have not yet
> >been considered.
> This is the IETF, there are no votes. 

It would be interesting, however, to see what it was we were trying
to solve. If it was purely from Demographic information then why
introduce the complexity of extensibility?

> Templates allow extensibility 
> which is a crtitical consideration in proposing any spec.
OK - so please answer why URL#X.Y.Z is so bad and why it messes with
Java and mobile code and why you care.


+1-203-730-5437 |