- From: Cheney, Austin <Austin.Cheney@travelocity.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 04:52:40 -0600
- To: t.petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: URI <uri@w3.org>
This absolves nearly all of my concerns. I have only one remaining question. How are URI scheme names differentiated as a specified instance of URI syntax from transmission protocols of the same name? I cannot determine where RFC 3986 discusses transmission. The closest I could find is: A common misunderstanding of URIs is that they are only used to refer to accessible resources. The URI itself only provides identification; access to the resource is neither guaranteed nor implied by the presence of a URI. I cannot discover such differentiation in practice and scheme does not appear to be defined as anything related to a means of transmission. Thanks, Austin Cheney, Travelocity User Experience CISSP TS/SCI -----Original Message----- From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of t.petch Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 7:49 AM To: Julian Reschke Cc: URI Subject: Re: Status of RFC 1738 -- 'ftp' URI scheme I just had pointed out to me that the status of RFC1738 is obsolete, obsoleted by RFC4248, RFC4266; it says so in the rfc-index so it must be true!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
Received on Friday, 14 January 2011 11:12:15 UTC