Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 00:48:19 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com> Subject: Re: IMAP URLs In-Reply-To: <96Nov25.185849pdt."135"@palimpsest.parc.xerox.com> To: Larry Masinter <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: URI list <email@example.com> Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.961126004134.13958Gfirstname.lastname@example.org> On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, Larry Masinter wrote: > There's not much time at the IETF URL-BOF to say much about the IMAP > URL scheme except to point out to people to read it. Fine. Although the IMAP URL does raise one meta-issue which is what to do about protocols which permit multiple strong-authentication mechanisms? I added an "AUTH=" parameter, but this might be better placed with the "user@" portion of the URL. > However, please check out > > draft-fielding-url-syntax-00.txt > > to see if the (revised) description of generic URL schemes clarifies > those things that were ambiguous from RFC 1738 & RFC 1808. Will do. > The goal originally was to revise 1738 & 1808 to make them consistent > with current practice. I agree with this goal. > What would current web browsers do with relative URLs with multiple > parameters? I have no idea. I'm not even sure how to set up an experiment. Anyone?