References to what SCO has done don't help much, as I don't have
access to their product, but I'm not sure we need this notation
to duplicate their functionality, and I don't like this notation.
> > If we are specifying a new link "something" that looks like a URL, we
> > should reference it with the same attributes as URLs. i.e. HREF.
>
> No. One looks up the *function*, the other is an *argument*. Your statement
> is exactly analogous to saying "I already have an argument that is a string.
> I don't need a function name to be a string, or any other arguments that are
> strings". HREF is used for both cgi-bin scripts and actual locations, and
> the result is that it is not possible to pass a location as argument to a
> script... in fact no consistent argument passing is possible for such fns.
>
> > I'm not convinced it is a good idea, but it makes more sense than
> > introducing a completely new name space that just happens to look like
> > URLS.
>
> You don't like "mailto:..." ?
>
> > Browsers that did not understand this new URL scheme say "browser:" would
> > refuse to follow the links.
I'm not totally fond of mailto: URLs, but mailto: and telnet: URLs
fit the model of "addresses to do something via a well-known
network protocol."
Netscape's local hacks like "about:" don't fit this framework very well
but they are still something that can be used like a URL in their
browser.
I'm not opposed to having URLs as two attributes: the use of URN on
<a> tags fits this (today we can't use URNs but some day...).
I don't think you've made a clear case as to what the heirarchical
"something" you are defining with linkas: is or if why we need it.
However, if we need it, I don't think we should use URL syntax
for this heirarchy unless we can give a useful intepretation
of what it might mean to use linkas: in one of the contexts
where URLs are now used, i.e. on <A HREF="..."> or <LINK HREF="..." >
If we are creating a heirarchy for some unrelated purpose, the
URL syntax is needlessly complex and confusing. Using a dotted
list of names works for a simple heirarchy.
There was one post that suggested we might need to get some
information on link information from a remote location, but I
don't see this as a reason to define a "linkas:" URL any more
than style sheets are a reason to define a "style:" URL.
(I also don't see what the distinction is you are trying to make between
"goto" and cgi scripts. )
I think you should try to make it clearer what you are proposing with linkas:
and why. You talk as if what you were saying was generally understood
or obvious: it's not.
I don't think we should use URL syntax unless there is a reasonably
good fit with other ways URLs are used. (This also might be treading
on the toes of the URI working group...)
--
Albert Lunde Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu