W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2007

Re: file: URIs without host

From: Mike Brown <mike@skew.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 22:36:25 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <200710090436.l994aP2a079362@chilled.skew.org>
To: uri@w3.org

Previous discussion in this direction led to a hotly debated, expired I-D [1]
and a wiki that never saw much participation [2].  

IIRC, the I-D merely extracted the 'file' scheme text from RFC 1738 with no 
changes, and only came into existence because someone didn't like the fact 
that RFC 1738 is hanging around in a partially-"obsoleted" state; it seemed 
like it'd be simple enough to just spin off RFCs for the handful of schemes 
that RFC 1738 is still authoritative for.

The draft was contentious for a couple of reasons: Republishing the same text 
in a separate RFC doesn't feel like a good idea, since there's consensus that 
the text is not really up to par; and there are different points of view on 
how descriptive and how prescriptive it should be, if rewritten. I also came 
up with a lot of hard-to-answer questions re: character encoding and the 
different levels of abstraction of the resources being identified.

When the topic of file URIs came up on IEBlog, I asked Microsoft to 
participate on the mailing list and wiki. I got a positive response
but never followed up on it. I think they may be lurking here.

I think the reason interest died off so easily is mainly just because there 
really isn't an urgent need for a standard to be hammered out. It's only once 
in a blue moon when someone goes looking for the spec and finds that it's 
basically a useless blurb in RFC 1738, then goes on to figure out they could 
do all right without it anyway. I do think it would be nice to get this going 
again, but only if there's a real need for it. Interest exists, but it's more 
"it would scratch this bureaucratic itch I have to see precise specs" than 
"this is holding me up."

At any rate, the wiki is still open; feel free to use it. You just need
to create an account to make any changes.

-Mike

[1] Paul Hoffman, Aug. 2004; check this list's archives around then
[2] http://offset.skew.org/wiki/URI/File_scheme


Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> 
> I don't think we'd have to go too far in documenting the various  
> inconsistent ways they're already used, so I don't see as much  
> trouble along those lines.  However, we would want to see who would  
> implement a new, rationalized way of handling them.
> 
> Lisa
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 4, 2007, at 7:02 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> 
> >
> > Jeremy Carroll scripsit:
> >
> >> Any thoughts?
> >> Which way should we rationalize behaviour?
> >> Should we be working on an I-D for file: ?
> >
> > The trouble is that a file: ID would have to document and explain
> > the various inconsistent ways in which file: is already being used.
> > To paraphrase Tennesee Ernie Ford:
> >
> > 	When you see file: coming, better step aside,
> > 	A lotta men didn't, and a lotta men died.
> > 	One way for Explorer, another for Mozill',
> > 	If the right hand don't a-getcha then the left one will.
> >
> > -- 
> > The Unicode Standard does not encode            John Cowan
> > idiosyncratic, personal, novel, or private      http://www.ccil.org/ 
> > ~cowan
> > use characters, nor does it encode logos
> > or graphics.                                    cowan@ccil.org
> >
> >
> 
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2007 04:36:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:37 GMT