Re: Proposal: New Anchor attributes

Martin Hamilton (martin@mrrl.lut.ac.uk)
Wed, 03 Jul 1996 05:45:02 +0100


Message-Id: <199607030445.FAA08744@gizmo.lut.ac.uk>
To: ceccaldi@igd.fhg.de (Danyel Ceccaldi (M. Kokula))
Cc: www-html@w3.org, JHTaylor@videodiscovery.com
Subject: Re: Proposal: New Anchor attributes 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 03 Jul 1996 00:15:13 +0200."
             <9607022215.AA07702@osiris.igd.fhg.de> 
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 05:45:02 +0100
From: Martin Hamilton <martin@mrrl.lut.ac.uk>

Danyel Ceccaldi (M. Kokula) writes:

| Possible places for defining the requested functionality:
| -encoding of URL's (rfc1738, update announced for the next time)
| -HTTP-Protocol, Proxy implementation of the HTTP-Protocol
| -URC, URN, URI (don't know if there are still existing WG dealing with them)
| -HTML

FWIW, most of the URN enthusiasts have agreed to bury the hatchet (but 
not in each other :-), and devised a common framework for doing URN 
type stuff.  For more info, see...

  <URL:http://services.bunyip.com:8000/research/ietf/urn-bof/>

It stikes me that this work, and the content negotiation stuff in HTTP 
1.1, aren't necessarily mutually exclusive of any HTML tweaking.  
But... history suggests that it would inadvisable to try and do 
everything you suggest in HTML anchor/link tags.  It would be very 
useful to establish at least a "standard" way of indicating multiple 
targets of a hyperlink.  This could be done without any HTTP 1.1 
deployment, URN/URC infrastructure, or tweaking of the URL format - and 
would be of undoubted benefit.  Comments ?

Martin