Re: Local program exection in WWW browsers

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Apr 94-present
• Next message: Paul "S." Wain: "The f****** BBC"
• Previous message: Jay Schaefer : "WWW and Next OS"
• Maybe in reply to: Vinay Kumar: "Re: Local program exection in WWW browsers"
• Reply: David.J.Heiland@att.com: "Re: Local program exection in WWW browsers"

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 09:38:44 --100
Message-id: <94Apr14.003541pdt.2760@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: masinter@parc.xerox.com
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Local program exection in WWW browsers
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 899

>				  Given that the URL working
> group has decided that you don't even want to reference local
> files, I suspect the best that x-exec: can hope for is de facto
> standardization.

Wait, wait, wait...

I think the *HTML* standard can have in it what it's willing to
include in a HREF or IMG SRC=; e.g.,  

in that standard, you can say that you allow

	<A HREF="reference" ...>

where a "reference" is either a:
	URL
	local file designator
	exec link
	relative URL-like-thing

etc.

Not all things that might appear in a *HTML* standard as 'allowable in
a link' should appear in the *URL* standard.

In particular, applications that require *URL*s but can't deal with
'exec links' and other things might be archie-like-things, resource
discovery programs, internet directory services, etc.

Just because it isn't in the URL standard and looks like a URL doesn't
mean you can't standardize it.