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

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

From: t.petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:49:23 +0100
Message-ID: <011201cbb329$0a7a2840$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "URI" <uri@w3.org>
I just had pointed out to me that the status of RFC1738 is obsolete, obsoleted
by  RFC4248, RFC4266; it says so in the rfc-index so it must be true!

So, is the status of RFC1738 really a concern, as opposed to having a proper
definition of the ftp URI scheme?

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
To: "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>
Cc: "Cheney, Austin" <Austin.Cheney@travelocity.com>; "John Cowan"
<cowan@mercury.ccil.org>; "URI" <uri@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: Status of RFC 1738 -- 'ftp' URI scheme


> On 12.01.2011 08:31, Paul Prescod wrote:
> > ...
> > If I understand your concern correctly then I would respond:that RFC
> > 3986 has section 1.1.3.  URI, URL, and URN, which clarifies the
> > distinction.
> > ...
>
> Absolutely.
>
> That people are confused about this is a hint that we need to retire
> 1738 completely.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 14:55:55 UTC

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