Re: ftp scheme

On 19 Apr 2011, at 16:08, Henry Story wrote:

> If people are for that please +1 and I'll add it as an issue.  When done we can have a vote to open it too, the idea being to look at the spec and see how it needs to be rewritten for ftp (and hence made generic enough for other existing or yet to be URI schemes)


While it's not a terrible proof-of-concept, and this isn't quite what you asked, it'd get a -1 from me as anything beyond a *pure proof-of-concept* places a hugely disproportionate burden on server implementors further on down the line.

Baking FTP into things means that certs can be generated with FTP URIs, which in turn means that servers need to support it, because otherwise people will have WebID certs which can't be used on some WebID sites.

(And, HTTP with its single outgoing TCP/IP connection is a damned sight easier to implement a client for in a Web server sitting behind a firewall than FTP is).

M.

-- 
Mo McRoberts - Data Analyst - Digital Public Space,
Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, 40 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1DA,
Room 7066, BBC Television Centre, London W12 7RJ,
0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key 0x663E2B4A


http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
					

Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 15:38:25 UTC