[papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca: Re: irc: [was: New URN suggestion ]]

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Fri, 23 Aug 1996 14:31:49 PDT


To: uri@bunyip.com
Subject: [papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca: Re: irc: [was: New URN suggestion ]]
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <96Aug23.143149pdt."2757"@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 14:31:49 PDT

There's some concern that most vendors don't implement the "ftp:" URL
scheme as described in RFC 1738, and that what they do implement is
incompatible. I think the only solution here is to put the "ftp:"
URL scheme in a separate internet draft and recycle it to "proposed".

Are there any volunteers for taking this on? I've not been able to get
cycles to get to the things I've already promised.

Larry


------- Start of forwarded message -------
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 18:33:29 PDT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: Re: irc: [was: New URN suggestion ]

At 10:21 PM 8/20/96 PDT, you wrote:
>the primary intent is to resolve the differences between RFC 1738
>(URL) and RFC 1808 (relative URL), as well as fix a few other things.

Can I suggest an RFC clarification? Netscape and MS IE do different things with:

ftp://foo:bar@ftp.foo.com

Netscape seems to do a "pwd" to find out where it is, and change the URL to
match. (usu. ftp.foo.com/users/foo )

MS IE seems to do a "cd /" and change the URL to match. (ftp.foo.com/ )

I don't think that the RFC spec was clear on this issue, but I didn't spend
a lot of time researching it.

 Paul Prescod


------- End of forwarded message -------