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

On 14.01.2011 11:52, Cheney, Austin wrote:
> 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:

They aren't.

>     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.

Again, I have no idea what you're looking for.

The "http" URI scheme is defined in RFC 2616, and can be used both for 
locators (for instance web pages) and identifiers (for instance XML 
namespace names). What it is depends on the context.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Friday, 14 January 2011 12:12:21 UTC