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

At 4:58 PM -0600 9/21/04, Mike Brown wrote:
>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?

If those are true, sure. But reading the threads on this list to 
date, I believe that most people would say that the morass of 
conflicting ad-hoc interpretations had more to with the 
understatement of the syntax, not the semantics of "what is a file".

... other hyperbole elided ...

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium