Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL

Of the 2 schemes I don't see any functional difference.

finger:<blah> is certainly more intuitive for most people.

finger://<blah>/<blah> is more descriptive from an engineering 
point of view. It's more intuitive for me.

Anyway, I'm liking finger:<blah> best of all now.

I assume the request is required to contain at least one
@hostname. (Unlike rfc1288.)

There's one thing I'd like clarified--will the final @hostname
part (from which the connect-to host is derived) be stripped 
before <blah> is sent to the remote host?


University of Tennessee, Knoxville            Dept of Computer Science
Netlib Development Group            'I was kidding,' says bomb suspect -- <URL:>

Received on Tuesday, 14 February 1995 21:28:59 UTC