>>> In this case, there is a definite RFC822-type of syntax, so that
>>> pretty much wraps it up, doesn't it?
>
>Yes. I would say that where a standard exists we have an obligation
>to use it, unless there is a VERY good reason not to.
Couldn't agree more. Then I know where my vote will go when it comes
to the syntax of the line.
>>> Url: <URL:http://www.domain.foo/pub/faq/my.faq> "Descriptive Text"
>
>Yes. This is ugly but headers, even auxiliary ones, are not meant to
>be pretty. It is nice when they are, but that is a bonus and should
>not be a requirement.
The header doesn't need to be called 'Url:'. 'Reference:' might
actually be a better name.
Reference: <URL:http://www.domain.foo/pub/faq/my.faq> "Descriptive Text"
Yeah. Much better.
-- Lennart Regebro: lennart@bump.traffic.is Moderator of comp.os.netware.announce: cona-request@stacken.kth.se Object-Fax technical support: techsupp@traffic.is Home page: http://www.traffic.is/~lennart/
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved