On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 03:47:13AM -0800, eeyem@u.washington.edu wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 12:44:14PM +0800, James Bromberger wrote:
> > This leaves us with:
> > ! @ % ^
> > * = +
> >
> > I kind of like @:
> > ::ffff:127.0.0.1@80
> >
> >
> > So a URl would look like:
> > http://::ffff:127.0.0.1@80/
> >
> > And isf we can user service names (a la /etc/services):
> > http://::ffff:127.0.0.1@www/
> >
> > It also kind of makes sense as 'at port 80'. The only problem I can
> > see is perl - the @ array token needs to be escaped to \@ - but since
> > this is already the case with email addresses in perl, this should
> > not be too big a deal. We're not exactly reinventing the wheel here.
> > The only problem comes with user education - that when a novice sees
> > <something>@<something>, they currently think 'email'. Overloading
> > this may cause some confusion.
>
> @ is already used in URIs to indicate passwords.
> http://user:password@host:port/path, IIRC.
>
> Also, Ian McKellar pointed out that:
> > Of course !, % and * (And sometimes ^) have special shell meanings too.
>
> So if you want to be absolutely correct, you must use one of:
> > = +
>
> Two choices. Pathetic, eh?
>
I've seen both ::ffff:127.0.0.1.:80 (dot-colon as the separator), and
[::ffff:127.0.0.1]:80 ([] as the separator), and both would be better than
using = or +.
I suggest using [addr]:port, as it's the easiest to read, and is already
the "standard".
--
"If you continue running Windows, your system may become unstable."
-- Windows 95 BSOD
Dwayne C. Litzenberger - dlitz@cheerful.com
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Advertising Policy: http://www.redrival.com/dlitz/spamoff.html
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.redrival.com/dlitz/gpgkey.asc
Fingerprint: 0535 F7CF FF5F 8547 E5A5 695E 4456 FB6C BC39 A4B0
Attachment:
pgpQC_n3k_b0N.pgp
Description: PGP signature