Date: Tue, 22 Mar 94 17:51:24 +0100
From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@ptpc00.cern.ch>
Message-Id: <9403221651.AA13726@ptpc00.cern.ch>
To: "Mark P. McCahill" <mpm@boombox.micro.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: how to make progress on the URL document
>> Eric:
>> Tim told me on the telephone that he already updated the January URL
>> draft in his WWW server. As I am working at home currently I don't
>> have the URL handy, but Mark you may want to look at the Cern WWW to
>> see if we can use that as a starter rather than the January one.
> Mark:
>I started looking at the hypertext and was not able to find a link to a
>complete document... there are references that sounds enticing but trying to
>follow them lead to
> "ERROR 404 not found -- file doesn't exist or is read protected".
I wonder where you started. The contents page is
http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/Addressing/URL/URL_TOC.html
(The links from that all seem OK to me, but I admit I use local
file access most of the time when I am editing. If you have a problem
accessing it then please give me the URL of the refering document. Thanks)
The TOC links will give you the various sections. One of the most intersting
is that on specific schemes, which is itself broken up into separate files.
I will remove some stuff on Terms from the document. The Requirements stuff
has gone. You won't find a complete document completely up to date --
I'll make an interim if people are interested.
You will also find some phrases linked to background docouments or notes.
These is a resource page for the whole UR* issue at
http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/Addressing/Addressing.html
which has pointers everything else, including lists of outstanding issues.
>There are links to a lot of individual sections and I have started going
>through these, but it doesn't look like Tim got done. I'll sort though
>the the pieces and post the ones that look interesting. Strangely enough, I
>guess I'm going to act as a Tim-proxy :-).
I'm back now from my sojourn in the land of dragons and daffodils,
so I'll get on with it. If anyone has comments on what's there please mail
ASAP. (I am only working as a uri-wg-proxy :-)
> This strategy fits nicely
>with the idea of proposing (and agreeing on) revisions to complete sections
>of the Jan 1, 1994 draft since these pieces I can find seem to correspond to
>the sections.
>
>So, let us proceed with revisions the parts that need it.
If anyone would like to update one of the HTML files, I will be happy
to check an incorporate it. You can mail it. I can generate a
complete document any time -- but no point until the sections are right.
I would appreciate versions of the online, rather than the Jan 1 version,
or simply description of what is left to be changed.
I hope to finish the thing tomorrow. Do I expect the Gopher+ section from
Mark?
Tim BL