- From: Rob Raisch <raisch@internet.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 15:48:06 -0500
- To: ietf-lists@proper.com (Paul Hoffman), chrisf@sour.sw.oz.au (Christopher Fraser), uri@bunyip.com, hoymand@gate.net (Dirk Herr-Hoyman)
I have a concern I'd like to air. Actually, it's more of a nagging feeling of unease than a concern. But here goes... There is a question in my mind regarding the purpose to which we would like to put URLs. The crux of this question is that mailto: and mailserver: do not, I believe, describe means which can be used to retrieve network resources. I have always understood a URL to be composed of three important parts: - How we will retrieve the stated resource -- (http, gopher, etc.) - From where we will retrieve a resource -- (host:port) - What resource we will retrieve -- (opaque URL specific info) Rather than a prescription which can be used to retrieve network accessible resources, these URLs provide a means of initiating a process, which can, perhaps, initiate the retrieval of a network accessible resource -- through a channel external to the browser, but is not necessarily required to. We seem to already have a method of initiating processes such as these, the CGI API, no? Now, is it just me or does this grate on others as well? I don't think that we really understand what we did when we defined the mailto: URL, and guess I am concerned how this will affect our understanding and the ultimate deployment of URNs. Comments? </rr>
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 1995 15:52:48 UTC