Re: "xurl?

[carl@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Carl Steadman)]

>URLs are a wonderful invention because they allow specification
>of transport and a virtual or physical path to the document -- all
>in one fell swoop. Surely there is an appropriate add-on to the URL
>that doesn't require replacement of an entire message transport substrate.
>
>Thus, I would argue that because 'xu' isn't a signifier of transport,
>like http and ftp, but rather of transcopyright -- the URL should
>in fact be something like:
>        http://xu-hoohah.com/

I don't really see how this follows, given

scheme://<user>:<password>@<host>:<port>/<url-path>

>or better yet tie it to the Content-type: application/xu, which
>allows the best of all worlds:
>        Transport independence: mail, news, http
>        Security system independence: S/MIME, MOSS, STT, SSL, ...
>        Payment system independence: SEPP, STT, Digicash, SPaM, ...

But the Content-type describes the content-type. Surely, that still needs
to be done, regardless of whether this is transcopyrighted content or not.
Is it text/html? Is it image/gif? I don't see how application/xu would be
useful.

What was Tim Berners-Lee actually proposing?

Have Roger Gregory and Sam Epstein identified the information needed for
each transaction? And how authentication will take place?

Carl