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

I'm thinking that we should be thinking of 'Draft Standard'
status for these revised URI documents; RFC 1738 was 
Proposed Standard, and we're either progressing them
or dropping them.

It sounds like there are multiple independent implementations
of the Proposed Standard, even though there are widely used
implementations that differ. But there's no strong technical
reason to chose one behavior over another. The Proposed
Standard behavior is more general, since there is a way
(using %2F) to get the "start at top level" behavior if
wanted.

So I take back my previous suggestion (which was just
focused on the wording, not the content).

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