Re: file: URIs without host

I don't think we'd have to go too far in documenting the various  
inconsistent ways they're already used, so I don't see as much  
trouble along those lines.  However, we would want to see who would  
implement a new, rationalized way of handling them.


On Oct 4, 2007, at 7:02 AM, John Cowan wrote:

> Jeremy Carroll scripsit:
>> Any thoughts?
>> Which way should we rationalize behaviour?
>> Should we be working on an I-D for file: ?
> The trouble is that a file: ID would have to document and explain
> the various inconsistent ways in which file: is already being used.
> To paraphrase Tennesee Ernie Ford:
> 	When you see file: coming, better step aside,
> 	A lotta men didn't, and a lotta men died.
> 	One way for Explorer, another for Mozill',
> 	If the right hand don't a-getcha then the left one will.
> -- 
> The Unicode Standard does not encode            John Cowan
> idiosyncratic, personal, novel, or private 
> ~cowan
> use characters, nor does it encode logos
> or graphics.                          

Received on Monday, 8 October 2007 21:44:00 UTC