W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Status of RFC 1738

From: Joseph Anthony Pasquale Holsten <joseph@josephholsten.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:14:37 -0600
Cc: URI <uri@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5D8E051B-3457-465D-B991-3D23A2C66FB7@josephholsten.com>
To: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
On Jan 7, 2010, at 4:46 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:

> The question has arisen of whether, with the publication of the nntp/ 
> news schemes, RFC 1738 can finally be delcared obsolete.
> Looking at the list of schemes defined therein, it appears that most  
> of them have been dealt with by new RFCs, or have been declared  
> historic. According to IANA, there would still remain just two  
> schemes not yet disposed of, namely 'file' and 'ftp'.
> It has been suggested that 'file' is so ambiguous, with no consensus  
> on how the clean it up, that it may as well be abandoned. OTOH, most  
> browsers support it, at least for accessing resources on the  
> localhost, and I personally find it quite useful.
> It seems that 'ftp' really needs a new RFC, even if it merely copies  
> the text out of 1738.
> What are the views of this list as to whether these schemes should  
> now be properly codified (and volunteers to do it)? And should the  
> final obsoleting of 1738 be held back until that has been done?
> When it is finally ready to go, declaring it as 'historic' might  
> well be in order.

+1 to getting these things out of 1738.

Seems like ftp should be straight forward.

Would you say that de facto file is more defined by browsers or  
operating systems? Seems quite similar to the about: scheme, which I  
need to just release. Will the text for the file scheme be reusable at  
all? Is 'get them all in a room and let them yell at me' a sufficient  
Joseph Holsten
Received on Thursday, 7 January 2010 17:15:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:13 UTC