- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:27:44 +0200
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Hello www-tag, The file: scheme used to be defined in RFC 1738. A common statement when one looks for the definition is: >> An old specification of the file URI scheme is found in RFC 1738. A >> new RFC 2396 based specification in not available yet, but file URI >> references are in common use. http://www.perldoc.com/perl5.6/lib/URI.html 2396bis (v.5) says: >> This document obsoletes [RFC2396], which merged "Uniform Resource >> Locators" [RFC1738] and "Relative Uniform Resource Locators" >> [RFC1808] in order to define a single, generic syntax for all URIs. >> It excludes those portions of RFC 1738 that defined the specific >> syntax of individual URI schemes; those portions will be updated as >> separate documents. The process for registration of new URI schemes >> is defined separately by [RFC2717]. Advice for designers of new URI >> schemes can be found in [RFC2718]. http://www.gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-05.html It also has a passing mention of the file protocol as an example inn the context of when and when not to mention localhost >> URIs that identify in relation to the end-user's local context should >> only be used when the context itself is a defining aspect of the >> resource, such as when an on-line Linux manual refers to a file on >> the end-user's filesystem (e.g., "file:///etc/hosts"). Does this mean that a) file is defined in RFC 1738 b) file is not defined formally, as RFC 2396 obseleted RFC 1738 c) Someone else has defined it and I missed it d) whatever <$browser> does Given the importance of filesystem access for a lot of processing on client and server, and the importance of using URI consistently for all types of access, I was interested to know the correct answer. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2004 12:27:44 UTC