W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > May 2005

file: scheme (was: Status of ftp:///?)

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 10:04:16 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050518095937.00baab68@127.0.0.1>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "'Paul Hoffman'" <phoffman@imc.org>, "'Frank Ellermann'" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>, uri@w3.org

As a plan, I think this is good.  I see level of capturing really useful 
information without forcing controversial matters onto the agenda.  Getting 
a non-controversial document out relatively quickly would be a benefit as a 
baseline for future debate.

Also maybe valuable would be collecting a set of test cases, controversial 
and not, which might help a later effort to resolve the controversial issues.

#g
--

At 22:52 16/05/05 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote:
>At some point in the past, I volunteered to take on the
>"file:" draft, but I got distracted.
>
>My hope was that we could produce a document that contained
>an informational component ("what current file: URI
>interpreters do today") with a survey of current
>implementations, and some informational guidelines
>("what future file: URI generators could do to
>  be maximally compatible") and then end with some
>normative text
>("what future file: URI interpreters should do").
>
>My hope would be to progress this along standards track,
>i.e., aim for DRAFT or even FULL standard. The 'protocol'
>itself meets the criteria for full standard, so we should
>be able to write a document that would stand in that
>status.
>
>I think we got into controversy because people were confusing
>what I propose as informational parts and thinking that
>they would have to be normative.
>
>Anyway, that's my idea. Shoot at it.
>
>Larry
>--
>http://larry.masinter.net

------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2005 10:20:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:09 UTC