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

Still an Off topic quicky question - but no reply needed to this thread, I am reading the current thread of request changes, etc.

From: Kitchen Pages <jrobinson@kitchenpages.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:37:20 GMT
Message-ID: <20040911.15372026@home.kitchenpages.net>
To: uri@w3.org,jrobinson@kitchenpages.com

I am thinking that the hierarchical syntax should perhaps be modified,
or noted a little bit better for the 'next batch' of protocols - a lead
by example if you will but only if possible.  The ideal of these posts 
is kind of how I found myself considering lateral movements in [rfc] :)

It kind of goes towards my 'quicky questions' of my reading of these 
[rfc] documents
in that I was only considering going up and down the document trees as
specified and creating seperate code for each (just to be correct with 
publication time; say for win95 users as
apposed to XP, and using the correct protocols for that point in time, 
etc..) - however writing new software applications that include older
protocols does not match how one reads the [rfc] in my view

In text below (v2 is more updated then v1).

Using file again:

tree(1)
\
|
+URI
| +URL
| |-file v2
| |-and many other wonderfull things... :) v2/v1
|
|
+URL History
| |-file v1
| |-and many other wonderfull things... :) v1

And, then a seperate tree named (2) for the win os that linux
users do not have access too by nature of this post.
(using bcb here also for an inbuilt file as an example 
and because it comes up through protocol stacks)

tree(2)
\
|
+os
| +file
| |-"c:\wateva"
| |
| |+bcb 
| | |-"c:\wateva" 
| | |


However I found myself wanting to do more like the following tree (3)
along with a few other things to keep with the ideal expressed with [rfc]
(kind of states that a new document is above and as an added
benfit I removed time), as:

tree(3)
\
|
+URI
|
|+URL
| |-file v2
| |-file v1
| |-file os (win95)
| |
| |+URL History
| | |-and many other wonderfull things... :-)
| | |-file v1
| | 
| |+os
| | |-file
| | | |-"c:\wateva"


I know the tree (3) is somewhat incorrect by nature of this post and as
I cut bits from the tops of other protocol stacks but
at the same time I am kind of in a lost state considering other things
like activex, dcom, os file, and the opensource versions for various 
uses.  But it is more inline with the current standard being written into
a software application while not using older files/drivers/etc...
My questions relate to an 'idodilogical question' so I can use things
like the stone lions example. Thus this post is off topic in my view.

Anyway - I think that tree (3) can not be as the 'file v1' was written
to perform using its underlying protocols, and allow interaction
with others above it. As is still the case :-( and confirmed in 
reply to my previous file protocol questions.  But at times the [rfc] 
style
of documenting is kind of confusing in this way.

The ideal expressed in my reading however is leading me to a belief that
newer protocols will include support (the cut and paste) while I know 
that I am lazy by nature and will piggy back where possible – I am so not 
going
to rewrite code but I will reuse it over and over again. Giving me even
more possible combos of my reading like the removal of time or perhaps 
order in some cases - the complex is that the [rfc] states otherwise 
while
in practice the opsite is true.

(like my question in relation to file and the os - according to 
garp aka 'me' it should of worked.. lol - and I still think it should
in my own twisted ways but thats another topic)

Sorry if I seemed kind of upset from a lack of reply - was not intended
but at the same time I was not expecting a reply due to my formatting of
such questions; considering the knowledge base of this group and I do not
want to seem like I am picking on nit-bits. Kind of like taking one brick
from a wall and getting upset with it for no real reason :)

I have been wanting to ask someone for so long about file protocols
its really not funny - and I thank you all for the attempts at an
understanding of my issue/s.

In anycase this goes to the heart of my issues with some rfc's, 
or perhaps just a limited few of the many. (I haven't read all of them)


:)

No reply is needed to this thread.

Many thanks again and kind regards,
Jason Robinson
JRobinson@KitchenPages.com


PS:  For the future, I have decided to use some smilie faces just to let 
people know when I am happy (always).  I also thankyou again for the 
time in reading/understanding/or in reply to my previous question/s.  
And Sorry again for the long post/s.
Received on Friday, 10 September 2004 22:34:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:34 GMT