[9607] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: URL Expansion proposal
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Israel del Rio)
Sun Jan 14 20:54:19 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 18:46:02 -0700
From: idelrio@abstraction.com (Israel del Rio)
To: "Adam M. Donahue" <donahue@acf2.nyu.edu>
Cc: www-talk@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.ULT.3.91.960114133345.5397B-100000@acf2.NYU.EDU>
Resent-From: www-talk@w3.org
>Again, two different methods would only confuse more. What's nice about
>a standard like the current URL is that it is a little bit flexible.
>Yours simply isn't.
Once again, I am not proposing an alternative to URL. As far as
addressing standards go, URL is fine. The problem is that 99% of the
Internet users are not simply interested in the nuisances of FTP, NEWS, Gopher,
etc. From their viewpoint having to learn about http: and domains is truly
redundant. UNIX has allowed the use of Aliases for a long time. Would you have
opposed their use? Frankly, I do not see why a proposal intended to make it a
little bit easier for business to advertise their main entry point to the web,
and for people to remember it would cause such an emotional response.
>> My gosh -- it's not _that_ confusing! Morally abhorrent? That's a
>> little reactionary.
Is there anything confusing in allowing companies to form phone numbers that
can be advertised as alpha phrases? (1800-CALLHERE). C'mon, URLs are an
*abhorrent* way to tell people they have to adapt to the computer and not
other way around! If that makes me a reactionary, so be it.
Regards,
Israel
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
* Israel del Rio Abstraction Software +303-791-6600 *
* Makers of PROPHESY *
* The Windows Based Network & Workflow Simulation System *
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
