Re: What URIs are and are not.

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Oct 93-present
• Next message: Pete: "Re: NCSA Mosaic for X 2.0 prerelease 8 available"
• Previous message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: What URIs are and are not."
• In-reply-to: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: What URIs are and are not."

Message-id: <9311091117.AA08143@survival.surfnet.nl>
To: timbl@nxoc01.cern.ch
Cc: uri@bunyip.com, www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
Subject: Re: What URIs are and are not.
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 09 Nov 93 11:28:48 +0100. <9311091028.AA08692@www3.cern.ch>
Organisation: SURFnet bv
Address: Cluetinckborch, P.O. Box 19035, 3501 DA Utrecht, NL
Phone: +31 30 310290
Telefax: +31 30 340903
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 93 12:17:31 +0100
From: "Erik Huizer (SURFnet BV)" <Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl>

Tim,

> Your comments about the document are important.
> If the document is only comprehensible given a
> historical knowledge of the WG's wandering concept set, then it's no
> use to anybody.  I felt that was probably because I had been shy of
> putting in the aims of the document.   Was the rest of my
> message any use at setting the objectives? Should some of that
> go into the document itself?

> Perhaps you could point out specifically where the URI
> spec fails to state its objectives.

I saw the draft spec that Jim Fulton managed to write up during some
bar-bofs at the IETF. I think that looks pretty good and contains the
essential points from your earlier posting. I assume Jim will send it to
this list shortly. look at it and see if you can live with it.

Thanks,
Erik