Re: URL-Reference / "empty URL" question

["Martin J. Duerst" <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 14 May 1997, Larry Masinter wrote:

>   "the copy of the content that is being viewed now"
> 
> Let's give it its own URL scheme
>    "this:"
> where the scheme-specific part of "this:" is
> empty.

Bright idea!

I'm not sure, but I seem to detect in some of the comments
in this thread a question as to why there could be a need
to move inside a document without every refetching it (from
the cache or wherever). But I think it goes without saying
that something like this is needed, and if it didn't
exist (currently as a special convention for URL references
of the form "#blarg"), somebody would come along and
invent it :-).

Regards,	Martin.