Re: Status of RFC 1738 -- 'ftp' URI scheme

On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 04:32:11 -0000, Mike Brown <> wrote:

> 'file' URIs being tied to OSes as they are (not so much a question of
> interopability on the Internet), I'm not convinced there are enough  
> people
> interested in the problem or who are having trouble with implementations  
> to
> really justify a project to update the 'file:' URI spec.
> I think it makes more sense to just leave the issue unresolved (pardon  
> the
> pun). That means either leaving RFC 1738 alive, or just retiring the  
> 'file:'
> URI spec altogether. That wouldn't preclude picking it up again in the  
> future.

Having taken a quick look at those links, I think people were trying to  
make it more complicated than needs be. Essentially, a file URI is  
supposed to be meaningful within some limited namepsace. Therefore, any  
convention which works within that namespace should work within the URI.  
If you are not familiar with the namespace in question, then don't use  
file URIs.

Put more simply, if you write file://host/blah-blah-blah, then if you  
write a POSIX open call open("blah-blah-blah", ...) then it ought to work,  
and you define the format of blah-blah-blah so that it is so. All you ahve  
to worry about then is where percent-coding is needed, and perhaps whether  
some relative URI is possible.

Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
Email:      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

Received on Monday, 3 January 2011 11:11:39 UTC