- From: <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 10:11:23 +0200
- To: Mandar Mirashi <mandar@kiowa.wildstar.net>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, connolly@w3.org, uri@bunyip.com, PICS-ask@w3.org
Mandar,
the document looks nice.
You might want to check out http://www.apps.ietf.org/apps/url-schemes.html
for questions I will want to raise about it once you ask the IESG to
consider it for Proposed Standard.
(By fiat of the Applications ADs, new URL schemes must be standards-track
documents.)
My comments so far:
<port> (optional)
The port number to connect to. If :<port> is omitted, the port
defaults to 6667. This may change in the future to default to the
IANA assigned IRC port 194, as it gains widespread use amongst
IRC servers.
This won't work.
You MAY get away with "connect to 194, if it fails, you may try connecting
to 6667", but this language changes the meaning of an URL over time, and
that simply doesn't work at ALL.
Questions based on my knowledge of IRC:
- Do you have any thought of naming NETWORKS rather than servers?
It would be distasteful to me to experience the pain of connecting
to us.undernet.org when the network distance to no.undernet.org is
close to zero (slowest speed link is 2 Mbit/sec, and lightly loaded).
Of course, names are a pain to match up....
- Do you have any thought of controlling in the URL any other parameter
of the session than the channel name to join?
- Do you see any advantage to having an URL for IRC nicknames?
Have fun!
Harald A
Received on Monday, 19 August 1996 04:12:26 UTC