Hi,

[...]
> 
> 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>.

Now I understand gotoken proposed "((<URL:...>))" with reason.
And now I suppose that "((<URL:...>))" is good because we don't have
so many brace like "((x ...x))" and "((<URL:...>))" is enough valid.

> 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??

Well, do you say that in the case of http, ftp, and mailto, we can
write "((<http://...>))" instead of "((<URL:http://...>))", for example?
This proposal may be fitting for \cle's request.

---
Tosh