W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2004

Re: Are we done with draft-hoffman-ftp-uri-02.txt?

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@tigerstaden.no>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 02:41:15 +0100
To: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <phoffman@imc.org>
Cc: "URI List" <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <opshuey1yluvpchu@quark>

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:19:30 -0700, Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>  
wrote:

> It would be grand to hear if anyone has any further refinements that  
> they want made to this draft in the next few weeks.

I have some minor comments:

   1.  Introduction

       URIs are were previously defined [...]

Shouldn't «are» be removed from that sentence?

   2.  Scheme Definition

       [...] A FTP URL follows the standard syntax [...]

Isn't «A_n_ FTP URL» correct?

   2.1 FTP Name and Password

       [...] If the URL supplies a user name but no password [...]

Is such behavioural description supposed to be a part of an URI scheme  
specification? Doesn't this rather belong in a protocol spec?

   2.2 FTP url-path

       The url-path of a FTP URL has [...]

«a_n_ FTP URL» again.

       [...] In fact, the whole url-path may be omitted, including the
       "/" delimiting it from the prefix containing user, password, host
       and port.

Shouldn't there be a comma after "/", and can't «prefix containing user,  
password, host and port» be abbreviated to «authority», as per RFC 2396bis?

   2.5 Optimization

Same as my comment to 2.1. Is such behavioural description supposed to be  
a part of an URI scheme specification?

And last; since the specification is named «The ftp URI Scheme», shouldn't  
all occurences of «URL» in the draft rather be «URI»?

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg     -=|=-    http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 01:52:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:35 GMT