News: anywhere vs. NNTP: to-server, eh?
Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net> Sat, 16 August 1997 21:44 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa11018; 16 Aug 97 17:44 EDT
Received: from services.bunyip.com (services.Bunyip.Com [192.77.55.2]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTPid RAA11083; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 17:47:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA01723 for uri-out; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 17:16:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA01718 for <uri@services.bunyip.com>; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 17:16:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mocha.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA09884 for uri@services; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 17:16:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from access2.digex.net (access2.digex.net [205.197.245.193]) by mocha.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA09881 for <uri@bunyip.com>; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 17:16:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from asgilman@localhost) by access2.digex.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) id RAA05889; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 17:16:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
Message-Id: <199708162116.RAA05889@access2.digex.net>
Subject: News: anywhere vs. NNTP: to-server, eh?
To: lynx-dev@sig.net
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 17:16:27 -0400
Cc: uri@bunyip.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970816145553.16229A-100000@xochi.tezcat.com>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL15 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-uri@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk
> X-URL: http://www.flora.org/lynx-dev/html/month0897/msg00299.html > > * Subject: Re: LYNX-DEV Re: news: vs. nntp: scheme > * From: Klaus Weide <[5]kweide@tezcat.com> > > To me "news:" means "at any USENET site". For practical use in accessing > data, the "any" has to be translated into a specific machine and access > protocol. It's just a useful optimization to use a local server if you > have one. > > There are useful differences in meaning. USENET vs. NNTP. A community of > people (which may not all use NNTP) vs. access to a specific machine > (which may not exchange any messages with USENET). Even though Lynx > (following others) extends the syntax of RFC 1738 in various ways, so that > it understands several strings to mean the same string, this doesn't mean > for example that it's a good idea to give out to other people an URL for a > USENET message in the "nntp:" form. > I like it. Let's see if I get it. IF we were to put the lynx-dev archive into a NewsGroup local to Flora.ORG, THEN that would be a resource which should be referred to with an nntp: URL (according to your semantics), right? It would be useless to go looking for the resource in any other location. At least I like the fact that this makes the news: scheme a de_facto example of an URI which is really a resource Name and not a resource Location. That's good. The HTML 4.0 draft thinks that URIs are all URLs and transport is all HTTP. We need somehow to broaden their vision... On the other hand, I support the extension of "localhost" defaulting across schemes other than http: so it would be easy enough to fold these URNs and URLs under one syntax where if you don't provide a path the URI is dereferenced by a client-side-determined search strategy starting with [the usual suspects]. This would give you permission to search for nntp:group.subgroup anywhere you find an NNTP server and still know where to look when provided with a resource identification with a path as in nntp://news.flora.org/lynx.dev ? The [news | nntp] converged scheme so defined would be always a resource name with optional location cues embedded. -- Al Gilman
- News: anywhere vs. NNTP: to-server, eh? Al Gilman
- Re: News: anywhere vs. NNTP: to-server, eh? Larry Masinter
- Re: LYNX-DEV Re: News: anywhere vs. NNTP: to-serv… David Woolley