- From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 14:11:51 +0200
- To: uri@w3.org
- Cc: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org
Hi, I've checked the gopher draft for the ftp:/// problem: | A Gopher URL takes the form: | gopher://<host>:<port>/<gopher-path> Somewhere we need "non-empty", a similar text as for ftp should do it. How about just copying this from STD 66 ? Insert as last sentence in chapter 2 of the ftp-uri I-D: For the "ftp" scheme a missing authority or empty host is considered as invalid. Above "If :<port> is omitted" in 2.1 of the gopher-uri I-D: For the "gopher" scheme an empty host is considered as invalid. Two other observations in the gopher-uri I-D: 1 - The "historical note" at the end of 2: | Historical note: The Gopher protocol was widely implemented | in the early 1990s, but few Gopher servers are in use today. That sounds too much like "obsolete, forget it". How about adding a hint, that gopher URLs may still work well with some other protocols like daytime, dict, finger, rwhois, etc. ? 2 - Gopher+ idea of a language | +<view_name>%20<language_name> | For example a Gopher+ string of | "+application/postscript%20Es_ES" | refers to the Spanish language postscript alternate view of | a Gopher+ item Now that's very 1993, or in other words not RfC 1766 / BCP 47. The term <language> is explained in reference [2] of RfC 1738: | [2] Anklesaria, F., Lindner, P., McCahill, M., Torrey, D., | Johnson, D., and B. Alberti, "Gopher+: Upward compatible | enhancements to the Internet Gopher protocol", | University of Minnesota, July 1993. | <URL:ftp://boombox.micro.umn.edu/pub/gopher/gopher_protocol | /Gopher+/Gopher+.txt> That URL still works, and if it worked for 12 years it might be allowed to use it in the gopher-uri I-D. Apparently the I-D wanted to do this, it uses the same text as RfC 1738 replacing its [2] by a [Gopher+], but [Gopher+] didn't make it into the informative references. Bye, Frank
Received on Sunday, 15 May 2005 12:31:10 UTC