- From: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:43:06 -0000
- To: URI <uri@w3.org>
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:25:01 -0000, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: > It seems to me to fit perfectly with the notion of a "reg-name" in RFC > 3986 Section 3.2.2. Relevant snippets: > > "In other cases, the data within the host component identifies a > registered name that has nothing to do with an Internet host. We use the > name 'host' for the ABNF rule because that is its most common purpose, > not its only purpose." > > "A host identified by a registered name is a sequence of characters > usually intended for lookup within a locally defined host or service > name registry, though the URI's scheme-specific semantics may require > that a specific registry (or fixed name table) be used instead." OK I stand corrected. Nevertheless, the interpretations implied by the paragraph above are clearly for "locally defined" facilities, and therefore should not be defined in a standard beyond some remark that authorities/hosts other than empty, 'localhost' and domain names are expected to be meaningful only in some local context which must be locally understood. So it might be reasonable for the feature you described to be used with Windows systems, but it would be cpmpletely meaningless in that for in a Unix context. Indeed, even though the file scheme will be defined in an 'internet' document, it will ahve little, if anything, to say about communiucations sent across the internet. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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, 10 January 2011 11:43:37 UTC