Message-Id: <9403080142.AA04791@mocha.bunyip.com>
From: bajan@bunyip.com (Alan Emtage)
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 20:42:34 -0500
In-Reply-To: Mitra's message as of Mar 7, 20:30
To: mitra@pandora.sf.ca.us (Mitra), <uri@bunyip.com>
Subject: Re: FTP syntax
Hi Mitra,
> If Alan has stated the consensus correctly on this, then we are adding
> two mandatory fields to the FTP URL, I'd like us to consider the syntax
> so as to avoid breaking existing URL's unneccessarily.
I'm _hoping_ that I stated the consensus correctly :-) If I'm not, I'm
sure I'll hear about it. The new fields where not part of the "consensus"
part (obviously) but were my personal comments, designed to address
points that Larry and others have made.
> I think the two fields {directory,file} and {binary,text,tenex} are
> orthogonal, and could easaily be combined into one
> {directory,file,binary,text,tenex}
I'm willing to be convinced that they are orthongonal... the only problem
I forsee is being able to address the entire contents of the directory as
opposed to the directory itself as an object. Someone suggested in the
past (sorry, I don't remember who) that this could be signfied by a "*"
character as the last component.. I believe that this conforms to the
current list of acceptable characters...
> I also think we could put it on the other end e.g.
>
> <url:ftp://ftp.path.net/one/two/three:binary>
>
> So that it's absence would indicate an old-stype URL, and that the
> client was on its own at guessing what it was.
That's fine with me... I'm not out to make the conversion more difficult.
OK with everyone?
-- -Alan------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alan Emtage, "The Left in Canada is more gauche Bunyip Information Systems, than sinister" Montreal, CANADA -The Economist
bajan@bunyip.com Voice: +1 (514) 875-8611 Fax: +1 (514) 875-8134