Message-Id: <m0qkao3-0005tYC@jolt.mpx.com.au>
From: avatar@jolt.mpx.com.au (Andrew Pam)
Subject: Re: <URL:...> considered harmful
To: Michael.Mealling@oit.gatech.edu (Michael Mealling)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 02:34:07 +1000 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <199409131348.JAA13927@oit.gatech.edu> from "Michael Mealling" at Sep 13, 94 09:48:19 am
> Andrew Pam said this:
> > I support Daniel's objections to the <URL:...> syntax.
>
> Qualify that, please. The current spec says that <URL:...> is only a suggestion
> for those instances where you have no context for knowing what this
> thing is. Are you objecting against that or are you objecting against it
> being REQUIRED which is what some older drafts said.
I strongly object to it being a requirement, but since this no longer seems
to be the case it is not necessarily an insurrmountable objection to the
current draft. However, since I dislike the syntax, I would like to see it
disparaged in the draft or at least have the objections noted.
> If you don't like it then don't use it. Everyone else wants to though.
If everyone else liked MS Windows/stoning infidels/jumping off cliffs, would
you make it a suggested practice too? (Apologies for the examples, but this
is not a meaningful argument).
Share and enjoy,
*** AVATAR ***
-- Andrew Pam avatar@aus.xanadu.com Manager, Serious Cybernetics avatar@jolt.mpx.com.au Coordinator, Xanadu Australia <http://www.aus.xanadu.com/> P.O. Box 409, Canterbury VIC 3126 Australia gopher gopher.aus.xanadu.com