[ruby-talk:00710] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum enta tion about RD?)

Hi

In message "[ruby-talk:00709] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum  enta tion about RD?)"
    on 99/08/19, [e-mail] <[e-mail]> writes:
>> I suppose using "((<...>))" for URL reference is better.
>> "((<URL:http://www.netlab.co.jp/ruby/>))" is verbose,
>> and using "((<...>))" only for mail-address is too restricted.
>
>I have no real objections against it. Only I am very lazy, so I don't
>like to write too much unnessary, you know? ;-)
>
>I would prefer, if we could write "((<mailto:...>))" respectively
>"((<http:...>))" or "((<ftp:...>))".
>
>That means we could perhaps spare the "URL:" part, couldn't we?

I feel it is too loose. We can handle all URL schemes by
((<URL:...>)), e.g., news, file, nntp, wais, telnet etc.

As you know, <URL:...> notation comes from the APPENDIX of
RFC1738. The RFC shows an example of use as follows:

   Examples:

      Yes, Jim, I found it under <URL:ftp://info.cern.ch/pub/www/doc;
      type=d> but you can probably pick it up from <URL:ftp://ds.in
      ternic.net/rfc>.  Note the warning in <URL:http://ds.internic.
      net/instructions/overview.html#WARNING>.

But, today, it is true that the almost all url are http, ftp or
mailto. Shall we treat these three schemes as the exceptional cases??

-- gotoken