Re: IMAP URLs

Chris Newman (Chris.Newman@innosoft.com)
Tue, 26 Nov 1996 00:48:19 -0800 (PST)


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 <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: URI list <uri@bunyip.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.961126004134.13958G-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com>

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?