On 20 Aug, GOTO Kentaro wrote:
> Hi
> 
> In message "[ruby-talk:00709] Re: Summary of discussion about RD (Re: Docum  enta tion about RD?)"
>     on 99/08/19, clemens.hintze / alcatel.de <clemens.hintze / alcatel.de> writes:

[...]

> 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>.

Ahh! Now I can understand your proposal :-) But if so, could we get rid
of the surrounding `((...))' for that case? That means we would write
`<URL:ftp://info.cern.ch/pub/www/doc;type=d>' in a RD 

That would be more convenient, wouldn't it?

> 
> 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??

Perhaps handle it like in my new proposal?

> 
> -- gotoken

\cle