Re: LYNX-DEV X-URL header field

[Uzi Paz]

On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Al Gilman wrote:

> to follow up on what Uzi Paz said:
> 
> > Any comments about using "X-URL" equivalent for mailing the stripped text
> > version via the "print" command? I don't know of any apropriate header
> > field, but it seems that "X-URL:" is definitly not good. .. [snip]
> 
> Can you be a little more specific as to what problem is caused by the
> way it works now?

I see no problems _at_the_moment_ , because as far as I know it is not
used by any automate.

I neither believe that you should change it at the moment. I do, however
believe that there should be a standard for dealing with such references -
with a well defined meaning to each header-field.

In principle, it is better to avoid such multipurpose header fields. 

Many non-standard header fields became de-facto standard fields, because
they were used in one program and then in another etc.
At some point one wishes to extend software to use these header fields,
but as there is no single meaning its not possible, and one has to use a
different header field. In the case of X-URL, because it has the "X-",
then if such a field becomes an Internet standard, it will have a
different name.

At the moment, I mainly wish to have a clearer picture of this subject.

Anyway, I wish to thank you and Fote for the info.

- Uzi