- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:20:27 +0100
- To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
* Matthew Kerwin wrote: >Hi, some of you may have seen that about six months ago I somewhat naively >created an ID to resurrect the 'file' URI scheme. In the intervening >months I've spent a bit of time lurking on IETF and W3C mailing lists >familiarising myself with the standardisation process, and studying up on >how people are using and supporting file URIs, and updating the ID. The >latest version, 09, was published yesterday: < >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kerwin-file-scheme-09> > >What I would really like is your opinions as experts, whether you think >it's a worthwhile effort, or if my approach is suitable, or any specific >issues (technical or editorial) with the ID itself. I think it is worthwhile and, after skimming the document, your approach seems suitable. I will probably be available to review the document once you consider it ready for Last Call. >An alternative approach I've considered is creating an Informational RFC >that "deobsoletes" parts of RFC 1738, since it's a bit unclear whether4248 >(telnet) and 4266 (gopher) obsolete *all* of it, or just those scheme >definitions. If you think that would be a better (or worse, or silly) >approach, I'd also like to hear so. That sounds worse to me. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2013 13:20:59 UTC