Re: An Anchor attribute question:

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Apr 94-present
• Next message: Reinier Post: "Pragma: header and preventing caching in general"
• Previous message: HALLAM-BAKER Phillip: "Re: Security/compliance"
• Reply: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: An Anchor attribute question: "

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 21:26:33 +0200
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Message-id: <9406011923.AA16569@ulua.hal.com>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: connolly@hal.com
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: An Anchor attribute question: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Mime-Version: 1.0

In message <199406011327.AA06130@oit.gatech.edu>, Michael Mealling writes:
>Since most folx who would answer this question were in Geneva last week
>I'll ask it again:
> 
>Concerning the attributes of the anchor tag:
>
>After looking over the current spec and picking apart the unstated but
>possibly implied differences between HREF and URN, I have a question:
> 
>CAN <A URN="value"> mean retrieve the page that has this Uniform Resource
>Name once it has been resolved into a URL?

Sounds reasonable.

>Is this the intended meaning and if so can that intended meaning be changed
>in order to accomodate URN->URL resolution?

Could you rephrase your question in terms of example markup
and client-server interactions?

Off the top of my head, this seems like a resonable usage:

	See <A HREF="ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc822.txt"
		URN="URN:EITF:rfc/822>The Format for Internet
		Messages</a> for more info.

Clients that grok URNs can use the URN attribute, and other clients
can use the ftp: address.

This still strikes me as something of a hack, but it's a reasonable
hack in the near term.

Dan