- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:48:27 +1000
- To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
On Thursday, December 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM, 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. > > 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.. > You might also want to take a look at: http://url.spec.whatwg.org/ IIRC, it tries to standardize the behavior of file:// across browsers also.
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2013 13:49:05 UTC