W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > January to February 1996

Re: URL Expansion proposal

From: Israel del Rio <idelrio@abstraction.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 18:46:02 -0700
Message-Id: <199601150146.SAA26069@teal.csn.net>
To: "Adam M. Donahue" <donahue@acf2.nyu.edu>
Cc: www-talk@w3.org
>Again, two different methods would only confuse more.  What's nice about 
>a standard like the current URL is that it is a little bit flexible.  
>Yours simply isn't.

Once again, I am not proposing an alternative to URL. As far as
addressing standards go, URL is fine. The problem is that 99% of the
Internet users are not simply interested in the nuisances of FTP, NEWS, Gopher, 
etc. From their viewpoint having to learn about http: and domains is truly
redundant. UNIX has allowed the use of Aliases for a long time. Would you have 
opposed their use? Frankly, I do not see why a proposal intended to make it a 
little bit easier for business to advertise their main entry point to the web, 
and for people to remember it would cause such an emotional response.

>> My gosh -- it's not _that_ confusing!  Morally abhorrent?  That's a 
>> little reactionary.

Is there anything confusing in allowing companies to form phone numbers that
can be advertised as alpha phrases? (1800-CALLHERE). C'mon, URLs are an
*abhorrent* way to tell people they have to adapt to the computer and not
other way around! If that makes me a reactionary, so be it.

Regards,

Israel





++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
* Israel del Rio    Abstraction Software       +303-791-6600 *
*                    Makers of PROPHESY                      *
*   The Windows Based Network & Workflow Simulation System   *
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Received on Sunday, 14 January 1996 20:46:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:19 GMT