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

Re: file: URI scheme

From: Kitchen Pages <jrobinson@kitchenpages.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:19:18 GMT
Message-ID: <20041023.13191804@home.kitchenpages.net>
To: uri@w3.org
CC: mike@skew.org

Hi again.
No reply is required but if needed one is welcomed; these are two more 
file comments (I am at the bottom of the barrel now for these comments).  
I have dug through the links sent and I see a great deal of my other 
issues have been discovered in 2003 along with others in 2002.  My many 
thanks again for posting the links.
On another note:
i) I noticed that current draft also refers to "file-URI"; which should 
be "file URI" – but this is IMHO to keep with the 'new draft' standard 
posted up to the URI list recently.
ii)I would also like the following (or something along these lines) added 
to file URI:

3.3  Use of hostname and host name

   The file URI specification calls for using the actual host name as
   the name authority and allowing it to be omitted for a resource
   found on the client requestor.  Some applications can and do
   generate file-URIs with no authority component at all, 
   such as "file:/this/is/the/path".  As above these applications
   do not use DNS, NetBIOS, or NetBEUI by default and have no need for 
   an name authority or host as they do not require the protocol stack 
   navigation of such; in many cases they do not require any protocol
   stack as this file uri is defined for local operations.
   This kind of file-URI as above has a Permanent URI Scheme Name Status.

   The same can be said in regards to FQDN because a DNS is required
   and some applications and implementations like the current
   Microsoft DLLs do not allow the file URI to invade DNS for
   resolutions as NetBIOS/NetBEIU for host authorities are defined on 
local and
   sometimes server machine boot/update/s.  

   The host refered to in these cases is within the windows domain of the 
   requestor/resolver; the result is something like the following 
   2 machines in different domains with the same host names.
   1 machine in a single windows domain calls for a host.
   The result will be a host known within the callers domain, not out 
   The commands of a host are UNC and not FQDN.

   It should be noted that file URI has no socket component on windows.
   This kind of file URI as above has a Provisional URI Scheme Name 
   The file URI may and can be changed at anytime without notice.

------==rabbit comments==--------
(I removed the checking part, and reduced Microsoft to a 'radical' 
unknown so an update could proceed without a MCP reply too request of 
info – I would think that Microsoft would revoke a persons MCP status 
because – as I was told – they do not allow or like information given out 
because it would lower the qualification of all MCPs; also I can not 
imagen a MCP that would want to aid and abet the cause for cross-platform 
use by linux, etc – another simba?)
Don't get me wrong – I love windows; just not some of the stuff done with 
it by its owner.
Perhaps an open letter to Microsoft by the URI list owners is in order?
The line of "The commands of a host are UNC and not FQDN" above simply 
states that
file://fqdn/HOST/resource/path/file and f
ile://HOST.fqdn/resource/path/file a
re not supported.
I avoided a bit about case in host names for UNC windows uses (a host 
'should be' upper-case; but can be any case).
I have attempted to create a file URI document for my own uses 
that is based around a test page at 
http://kitchenpages.com/help/i3/draft-kp-file-uri[0]-testpage.htm); my 
document and test are both flawed but I thought I would post the links 
for lol...
REF: mid:E1CGyoU-0001bA-IE@frink.w3.org

My many thanks again and kindest regards,
Received on Friday, 22 October 2004 20:16:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:08 UTC