W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2011

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:06:56 +0100
Message-ID: <4D2D8B50.4030308@gmx.de>
To: "Cheney, Austin" <Austin.Cheney@travelocity.com>
CC: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, URI <uri@w3.org>
On 12.01.2011 11:51, Cheney, Austin wrote:
> ...
> To be precise URLs are for resolving resources.  URIs are for
> identifying and addressing resources.  This is so, because both
> documents specify what a URL is and RFC 3986 clarifies that distinction.

URLs are URIs. RFC 3986 defines the syntax and various operations (like 
encoding, various types of comparisons, or resolution of relative 
references).

The only aspect of a *concrete* URL that is not described by RFC 3986 is 
the actual syntax and semantics of the given scheme. And that part needs 
to be described in scheme-specific documents, such as for ftp or http.

A *generic* document that describes URLs isn't needed.

> If precision is important please indicate which language of which
> document obsoletes RFC 1738.  Furthermore, what does 99% obsolete mean?
> A document is either valid or invalid.  RFC documents are rendered
> obsolete by replacement and no other means.  If I am in error can we be
> precise as to the nature of the term "obsolete" as used by the IETF?

That the standards track classification system is to coarse-grained when 
an old RFC does too many things at once is a known issue and entirely 
orthogonal :-).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2011 11:07:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:14 UTC