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

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

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>
Message-ID: <9FB4E1C2C67D214BAF184CE12F7DF4DB29139D24B7@SGTULMMP005.Global.ad.sabre.com>
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I just had pointed out to me that the status of RFC1738 is obsolete, obsoleted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

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