From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/31072 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Russ Allbery Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: URLs containing `?' are not fully comprehended Date: 18 May 2000 17:31:34 -0700 Organization: The Eyrie Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035167523 11967 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 02:32:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 02:32:03 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from lisa.math.uh.edu (lisa.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.49]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 219A6D051E for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 20:32:06 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by lisa.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAB16784; Thu, 18 May 2000 19:32:05 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Thu, 18 May 2000 19:31:33 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from mailhost.sclp.com (postfix@sclp3.sclp.com [204.252.123.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA23125 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 19:31:24 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.12.23]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B0BE5D051E for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 20:31:37 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: (qmail 23682 invoked by uid 50); 19 May 2000 00:31:34 -0000 Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: Toby Speight's message of "17 May 2000 15:23:20 +0100" Original-Lines: 13 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) XEmacs/21.1 (Biscayne) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:31072 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:31072 Toby Speight writes: > While we're on URL highlighting, some folks use <...> instead of > to delimit multi-line URLs. Is it possible for us to > accommodate this use? (IME, it's becoming more common) The form is basically dead, unfortunately, because it was a recommendation of an RFC that's now been superseded by a newer RFC that suggests just using <...> because that's what everyone is actually doing and because almost no one used . -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)