W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > December 2013

Re: reviving the file URI scheme

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
Message-ID: <3ndja99jsohd3eor70e9j013j89mbr2jc6@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* 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: <
>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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:16 UTC