Re: An Anchor attribute question:

"Daniel W. Connolly" <>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 17:42:43 +0200
Message-id: <>
Precedence: bulk
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <>
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
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 <>, Michael Mealling writes:
>Daniel W. Connolly said this:
>> Actually, now that I think about it, If you're not going to include
>> a redundant URL, why don't you just write:
>> 	<A HREF="URN:IANA:IETF:rfc/822"> ...</a>
>> ???
>This would work also. I would like to be able to make this distinction
>in HTML though. Simply to keep in the spirit. There also seems to be
>something in HTParse.c that is causing that example URN to be invalid
>since HTParse.c: scan() function makes the assumption (which may be
>a correct one according to the current URL spec) that no other colon
>should exist beyond the first one. This is causing HTParse() to turn
>the above into "URN:rfc/822" by basically looking at the first colon
>Is this correct?

Well... it depends on how you want to look at it. The URI working
group's definition of URL is

The WWW definition of URI (the contents of the HREF attribute) is:
where all the parts are optional, but only certain combinations
make sense. (See
for details)

So any WWW URI is an IETF URL, but the converse isn't true.
HTParse.c assumes you're handing it a URI.

Now if you define the syntax of URN to be:
then any URN is a URL, but it's not a URI.

It would make more sense to me to define the syntax of URNs
such thaty they are also URIs. So in stead of:

you would write:

It's just an expedient measure to hasten deployment. The syntaxes
have equivalent expressive power.