RE: Context Independent URI

Dare,

> Why are you getting your information from an old RFC?

Simply because I looked in the IANA registry for URI schemes and RFC1738 is
the one that it references for the file: URI scheme.

That said, if I'd visited the RFC index I'd have found:

1738 Uniform Resource Locators (URL). T. Berners-Lee, L. Masinter, M.
     McCahill. December 1994. (Format: TXT=51348 bytes) (Updated by
     RFC1808, RFC2368, RFC2396) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

RFC1738 has not been obsoleted and still seems to be the main reference at
least for the file: URI scheme.

Anyway, thanks for the pointer.

Regards

Stuart Williams
--
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@microsoft.com]
> Sent: 22 July 2002 17:32
> To: Williams, Stuart; Miles Sabin
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Context Independent URI
> 
> 
> Why are you getting your information from an old RFC? I 
> assumed everyone got their information on URIs from RFC 2396 
> since it updates RFC 1808 and RFC 1738. Specifically you should note 
>  
> "G.3. Modifications from RFC 1738
> 
>    The definition of specific URL schemes and their scheme-specific
>    syntax and semantics has been moved to separate documents.
> 
>    The URL host was defined as a fully-qualified domain name.  However,
>    many URLs are used without fully-qualified domain names (in contexts
>    for which the full qualification is not necessary), without any host
>    (as in some file URLs), or with a host of  'localhost'."
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  -----Original Message----- 
>  From: Williams, Stuart [mailto:skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com] 
>  Sent: Mon 7/22/2002 2:12 AM 
>  To: 'Miles Sabin' 
>  Cc: www-tag@w3.org 
>  Subject: RE: Context Independent URI
>  
>  
> 
> 
>  Hi Miles,
>  
>  Just re-checked RFC 1738 and got this bit wrong:
>  
>  > file: scheme URI which allow a hostname, but do
>  > not identify the namespace from which the hostname is 
> taken (eg
>  > internet-domain name, DECNet, Novell IPX, Appletalk...)
>  
>  From RFC 1738:
>  
>     A file URL takes the form:
>  
>         file://<host>/<path>
>  
>     where <host> is the fully qualified domain name of 
> the system on
>     which the <path> is accessible, and <path> is a hierarchical
>     directory path of the form 
> <directory>/<directory>/.../<name>.
>  
>  So... <host> is expected to be a domain name.
>  
>  Cheers,
>  
>  Stuart
>  
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Williams, Stuart [mailto:skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
>  > Sent: 22 July 2002 10:02
>  > To: 'Miles Sabin'
>  > Cc: www-tag@w3.org
>  > Subject: RE: Context Independent URI
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Miles,
>  >
>  > > -----Original Message-----
>  > > From: Miles Sabin [mailto:miles@milessabin.com]
>  > > Sent: 21 July 2002 22:50
>  > > To: www-tag@w3.org
>  > > Subject: Re: Context Independent URI
>  > >
>  > > Williams, Stuart wrote,
>  > > > So... I have tried to avoid using the term 
> absolute to avoid
>  > > > confusion with absolute and relative URI and 
> tried to focus the
>  > > > principle on the scope of the mapping from URI to 
> resource/concept.
>  > >
>  > > Umm ... but that renders the "principle" pretty 
> close to hopeless: a
>  > > relative URI ISA URI, yet is quite clearly context 
> dependent, and quite
>  > > rightly so.
>  >
>  > Yes, I agree, the resource denoted by a relative URI 
> is also context
>  > dependent. What I am trying to pick up is that there 
> are also some
>  > (syntactically) absolute URI (in that they start with 
> a scheme name) that
>  > are also context dependent... eg. URI which use an 
> unqualified domain name
>  > as the assigning authority; file: scheme URI which 
> allow a hostname, but
>  do
>  > not identify the namespace from which the hostname is 
> taken (eg
>  > internet-domain name, DECNet, Novell IPX, Appletalk...).
>  >
>  > Do each of the absolute URI file:///etc/passwd or
>  > file://localhost/autoexec.bat or http://cally/ identify a
>  > single resource or
>  > concept?
>  >
>  > > At the very least the text of the principle needs
>  > > a bit of serious tweaking.
>  >
>  > So... is there a particular 'tweak' that you had in mind?
>  >
>  > > Cheers,
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Miles
>  >
>  > Thanks,
>  >
>  > Stuart
>  >
>  
>  
> 
>

Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 13:02:10 UTC