- From: <Jared_Rhine@hmc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 16:05:05 -0500
- To: ietf-lists@proper.com (Paul Hoffman)
- Cc: uri@bunyip.com
LM == Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
PH == Paul Hoffman <ietf-lists@proper.com>
LM> Sorry for weighing in late on this, but my personal opinion after some
LM> consideration is that
LM>
LM> finger://host1.bigstate.edu/someuser
LM>
LM> is preferable to finger:someuser@host1.bigstate.edu
PH> - How to allow
PH> finger:user@usershost@host1@host2
Is this not covered by <URL:finger://host2/user@usershost@host1>? (Assuming
I unwrapped your example correctly.)
PH> - How to allow "/W".
Similarly, is this not <URL:finger://host/%2fWuser>?
PH> Also, I would like to see discussion about allowing host:port in this
PH> syntax. Should it be allowed, even though RFC 1288 says only serve on
PH> port 79?
I support not allowing a port specification for the finger scheme.
--
Jared_Rhine@hmc.edu | Harvey Mudd College | http://www.hmc.edu/~jared/home.html
"A black hole is where God is dividing by zero."
-- attributed to Roger Smith
Received on Sunday, 26 February 1995 16:05:23 UTC