RE: What to do about file:

I think you quoted the wrong draft, you meant

 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-file-uri-00.txt

I think what would be useful would be:

   Say more about the wide variety of interpretations
   When possible, describe what file: URI creators can do
    to be compatible with the most common file: URI consumers.

> - Leave the document as is

no
 
> - Prescribe what implementations SHOULD do, knowing that such a 
> prescription is bound to break many/most existing implementations

this would be useful if it were accompanied by documentation
of the caveats.

 
> - List many more interpretations that current implementations use, 
> but not say whether or not to do them

avoid making gratuitous recommendations, but not ALL recommendations

> - Say more about the wide variety of interpretations, but don't list 
> them soas not to confuse readers

It's more useful to describe useful.
 
> Getting consensus on this may be difficult, given the history over 
> the past year.

I'm hopeful that if we focus on actual text (instead of imagined
text), we can make progress.

If we decide to go for documenting current practice, 

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=file%3A+url+schem
e
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=file%3A+uri+schem
e

might be a place to start.

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net