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

Re: more 'file' suggestions for draft-hoffman-file-uri

From: Mike Brown <mike@skew.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:58:05 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <200409212258.i8LMw595070888@chilled.skew.org>
To: "Paul Hoffman / VPNC" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
CC: uri@w3.org

Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
> This seems like overkill for a scheme that has gone under-defined for 
> a decade. I see no reason to try to reinterpret the scheme now

The amount of time it has been under-defined is irrelevant. If, *today*, we're 
all in agreement that it is inadequately defined, and if, today, we're all in 
agreement that it's unfortunate that this has led to a morass of conflicting 
ad-hoc interpretations that hinder interoperability, then what more reason do 
you want to knock it into better shape? How can you even call this a 
"standard" if it is so vaguely specified, that it doesn't standardize 
anything? About the only thing that file URIs have in common today is that 
they all start with "file:".

If you intend to leave it underdefined, then I feel there should be a 
statement to that effect in the standard, and you shouldn't be asking for 
further comment aside from those that are strictly nonsubstantive, such as 
pointing out the typos and grammatical errors.

Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 22:58:06 UTC

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