W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > August 2003

Re: draft-hoffkohn-rfc1738bis-00.txt (news, snews, nntp)

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 20:49:25 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
Cc: kent@faqs.org, uri@w3.org

An old [but newer than 1738] draft revision of the definition of the 'news' 
scheme that inter_alia incorporated domain-name-addressing of a server as 
in the 'nntp' scheme is
available from:


At least some implementations supported this fusion.

Kent Landfield may have been the person who was working within an IETF group
updating the NNTP specification, and expressed interest in this draft.  That
group may have worked further on the question of URI scheme(s) to interface
to news groups and articles and NNTP servers.  If Paul or Larry can recover
who led the revision of NNTP it would be good to check back to see if they
did any work in this area.

One typo:

In the current draft there is a header


2.2.2. FTP Typecode is Optional


It would appear this section is meant to be numbered 2.2.3, as the section 
before is 2.2.2
and the one after is 2.2.4.


At 07:31 PM 2003-08-16, you wrote:

>Greetings. After being prodded to produce an Internet Draft on historical 
>URI schemes, I completely dropped the ball and didn't announce the draft 
>to this mailing list. So, here it is:
>    draft-hoffkohn-rfc1738bis-00.txt
>All comments are welcome. There are two open issues listed in the 
>document, and I look forward to hearing opinions on them.
>    Section 2.8: will be updated to include specific usage of the file:
>    scheme on different operating systems
>Having done some experimentation, I believe that we can't say much general 
>about particular operating systems. Instead, it seems like various 
>versions of browsers and other URL resolvers do different things for file: 
>based on the whim of the implementer. I can certainly discuss that in a 
>paragraph, but that's probably all we need.
>    References: some of the references are to URLs that no longer work or
>    are likely to be abandoned in the future. How do we want to deal with
>    this?
>My feeling is that we should remove the references altogether, and leave 
>the schemes described but not defined. However, I'm open to other ideas.
>--Paul Hoffman, Director
>--Internet Mail Consortium
Received on Saturday, 16 August 2003 21:09:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:06 UTC