Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:31:56PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
>> Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>> > So URLs are not
>> > literals, they have structure, and only thinking of them as filenames
>> > may be too simplistic.
>>
>> Yeah. But Rebol manages to deal with them.
>
>I doubt it. telephone:? fax:? lpp:? callto:? uuid:?
>
>If Rebol can handle all of those URL schemes, why bother with Perl
>in the first place?
>
>> I don't know if this is something we want to follow Rebol's
>> lead on, but it's something to look at.
>
>Sounds like if there's a 'use url;' clause in use, then the standard
>three (mailto:, http:, ftp:) might be available, whereas other
>URL schemes would need different declarations (use url::dns;).
Why not have URL.pm look for the appropriate module PerlIO::URL::fax
say - as I recall that is what LWP does in the mundane perl5.003 world.
>
>Z.
--
Nick Ing-Simmons
