W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2004

RE: Status of the RFC 1738 replacements

From: Israel Viente <israel_viente@il.vio.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:43:46 +0200
To: <uri@w3.org>
Cc: "'Larry Masinter'" <LMM@acm.org>, "'Paul Hoffman / IMC'" <phoffman@imc.org>
Message-Id: <20041102134144.CC9C933CCF@sa9.bezeqint.net>

>I stand behind the belief that not having a recommended practice for
>'file:' is harmful and that we can do better.

I absolutely agree. I think there is a value to recommend these best
practices to influence future implementations, even if it will be almost
impossible to influence current (like existing browser applications).

I attach here a word document with an application note distributed in CIP4
(www.cip4.org), which deals with best practices on the "Use of the File URL
in JDF".
JDF is an XML job ticket definition for the printing industry. It holds the
printing workflow instructions and links to the content files. These links
can use file: URIs.

It was composed since there was a confusion regarding implementing file URI
support between vendors supporting JDF, and it was sure contributed to
better interoperability.


-----Original Message-----
From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Larry
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 2:44 AM
To: 'Paul Hoffman / IMC'; uri@w3.org
Subject: RE: Status of the RFC 1738 replacements

> Documents there was no discussion on, and we're probably done with:
>     draft-hoffman-gopher-uri-01.txt
>     draft-hoffman-prospero-uri-01.txt
>     draft-hoffman-telnet-uri-01.txt
>     draft-hoffman-wais-uri-01.txt

I continue to think 'gopher', 'prospero' and 'wais' should be dropped,
and that there is no reason to maintain them in standards
track, that publishing new RFCs describing these is not
a good use of IETF resources; unless the documents are published
on April 1, the schemes don't belong in standards track.

I think 'telnet' probably needs an update, but we haven't
people just haven't looked at it. Perhaps a specific last
call on it would finally solicit review.

> I propose that, at the beginning of December, we compare the existing 
> "file" Internet Drafts and pick one, and be done with it. Sound 
> reasonable?

I propose working harder to find someone willing to take
on the work. I understand your reluctance and don't blame
you for not wanting to do it, but I stand behind the belief
that not having a recommended practice for 'file:' is
harmful and that we can do better. I think we need to reach
harder to get to the people responsible for current implementations
of 'file:'. Again, this might take some time.


Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2004 13:44:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:46 UTC