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

Hi,

I agree that Larry's approach to getting out a basic 'file' URI
document quickly is a good idea.  

If the new 'file' URI RFC merely had an Informative appendix of 
known ambiguities that would be fine.  A _next_ version of the RFC could try
to resolve some or all of those ambiguities.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org]On Behalf 
> Of Graham
> Klyne
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 6:21 AM
> To: Larry Masinter; 'Paul Hoffman'; 'Frank Ellermann'; uri@w3.org
> Subject: file: scheme (was: Status of ftp:///?)
> 
> 
> 
> 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 18:42:12 UTC