Re: mailserver scheme, third round

At 9:39 AM 1/16/95, Daniel W. Connolly wrote:
>As long as we're not using the mailto: name, I suggest we use the
>same name that the MIME spec gives to this functionality, i.e.
>mail-server.

That would have been a good idea before RFC1738 was submitted, but I think
it is unwise now that "mailserver" (unhyphenated) is already a reserved
name there.

>Wherever possible, I think the MIME external-body access type
>namespace and the URI scheme namespace should coincide. It seems silly
>to have different names for the same functionality -- or even worse --
>different functionality by the same name.

I agree completely. We should keep an eye out for this in future URL scheme
names. It is unfortunate that we didn't do that in this case six months
ago.

--Paul Hoffman
--Proper Publishing