- From: Fisher Mark <FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Aug 96 08:54:00 PDT
- To: www-talk <www-talk@w3.org>
Paul Francis writes in <9608060425.AA26677@cactus.slab.ntt.jp>: >Having had a bit of experience with IPng back in the old days, >I suspect that the desire of the IPng folk for the shorthand >notation is primarily to make writing down multicast >addresses easier. I personally don't think that there will be >many unicast addresses that have a lot of 0's in them, so the >savings in the shorthand notation won't be so much. As such, >my personal inclination would be to disallow the shorthand notation >when used in a URL. But then, I suppose that would be going >against the IPng standard, so is likely to cause other problems... A partial solution could be to allow the shorthand notation if the URL is for the standard port 80, but that the full notation must be used if a port other than 80 is used. Still against the IPng standard, though (just less against it). ====================================================================== Mark Leighton Fisher Thomson Consumer Electronics fisherm@indy.tce.com Indianapolis, IN
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 1996 09:55:42 UTC