W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > July 2011

Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-yevstifeyev-ftp-uri-scheme-04.txt

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 21:03:03 +0300
Message-ID: <4E1897D7.9030300@gmail.com>
To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
CC: URI <uri@w3.org>, Apps-discuss list <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
09.07.2011 13:58, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> On 9 July 2011 05:34, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>
> Skipping the i18n and security considerations until I see
> a new I-D one quick addition:
>
>>> an unencoded "#" starts the fragment and is interpreted
>>> (or ignored) by clients depending on the document.
> [...]
>> This will also be included in the draft.
> Thanks.  My comment almost missed the point, the fragment
> depends on the document<add>  type, it does not depend on
> the URI scheme</add>.  In the times of "hashbang URIs" it
> might be necessary to be as clear as possible about this:
>
> Fragments are one of the subtle differences between STD 66
> and its predecessors (incl. RFC 1738).
OK, this will be clarified.
>
> For my privacy concerns pick something that does not upset
> John or SM -- I'm almost sure that we want the same thing
> from different points of view (server admin vs. FTP user,
> with "popular" browsers hiding or not offering any choice).
I think I'll find corresponding approach to address these concerns in -05.

Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>
Received on Saturday, 9 July 2011 18:02:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 9 July 2011 18:02:45 GMT