RE: fw: questions about rfc 2396

 From RFC 2396 I understood it replaces RFC 1738.

"This document defines the generic syntax of URI, including both absolute 
and relative forms, and guidelines for their use; it revises and replaces 
the generic definitions in RFC 1738 and RFC 1808. "

And in RFC 2396 '<file:/e:/xxx.pdf'>file:/e:/xxx.<file:/e:/xxx.pdf'>pdf' 
seems to be legal as an absolute URI.
<<<
absoluteURI = scheme ":" ( hier_part | opaque_part )
hier_part = ( net_path | abs_path ) [ "?" query ]
net_path = "//" authority [ abs_path ]
abs_path = "/" path_segments >>> ---> so <file:/e:/>file:/e<file:/e:/>:/... 
is acceptable.

1) Which RFC should I follow in case of file URIs 2396 or 1738 ?
2) About the escaping of ':' seperator of the drive letter.
is "<file:///e%3a/xxx.pdf>file:///e%3a/xxx.<file:///e%3a/xxx.pdf>pdf" also 
valid ?



Thanks Israel















-----Original Message-----  From:   Larry Masinter 
[SMTP:LMM@acm.org]  Sent:   Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:34 
PM  To:     'Israel Viente'; uri@w3.org  Subject:        RE: fw: questions 
about rfc 2396

Officially, there has been no update to the "file" URI specification since 
RFC 1738.  (While some of the URI schemes defined in RFC 1738 have been 
updated, many of them have not; that's why RFC 1738 isn't "obsoleted" yet.)

    In RFC 1738's definition of "file:" URIs, there _must_ be a host field, 
although the host can be omitted.  So, if you're asking

is it 'legal' to write 
'<file:/e:/xxx.pdf'>file:/e:/xxx.<file:/e:/xxx.pdf'>pdf', the answer is no, 
not according to RFC 1738, you must 
write         <<file:///e:/xxx.pdf>file:///e:/xxx<file:///e:/xxx.pdf>.pdf> 
    which is valid.     The lack of updates to bring the RFC 1738 
efinitions more in keeping with the actual implementations (including 
platform dependent specifications for how to handle drive letters and UNC 
paths) is really a shame.

    I'll add this to the agenda for the upcoming URI BOF at the next IETF 
meeting.     Larry  -- 
<<http://larry.masinter.net>http://larry.masinter<http://larry.masinter.net>. 
net>
-----Original Message----- From: uri-request@w3.org 
[<mailto:uri-request@w3.org>mailto:uri<mailto:uri-request@w3.org>-request@w3. 
org] On Behalf Of Israel Viente Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 11:47 PM 
To: 'uri@w3.org' Subject: re: fw: questions about rfc 2396

After all this discussion I still ask:

Is it legal to write file uri like the following

<<file:/e:/xxx.pdf>file:/e:/xxx<file:/e:/xxx.pdf>.pdf>

or should it be <<file:/e%3a/xxx.pdf>file:/e%3a/xxx<file:/e%3a/xxx.pdf>.pdf>

or both are valid ?

Israel

............................................................................. 
....................... Israel Viente Email: israel_viente@il.vio.com < 
<<mailto:israel_viente@il.vio.com>mailto:israel_viente@il.vio.<mailto:israel 
_viente@il.vio.com>com>> Tel: +972-9-9725804 Mobile: +972-51-544682 Fax: 
+972-9-9725810

VioNet Israel Ltd POB 4125, Herzliya B,  ISRAEL 46140 
<<http://www.vio.com>http://www.vio.<http://www.vio.com>com> 
............................................................................ 
.......................

Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 12:32:39 UTC