file:///

[Paul Hoffman / VPNC]

At 1:19 PM +0100 11/13/04, Waldo Bastian wrote:
>On Saturday 13 November 2004 12:57, Waldo Bastian wrote:
>>  On Saturday 13 November 2004 11:40, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
>>  > However, the preamble to rfc 2396bis says the specific schemes described
>>  > in rfc 1738 (the file: scheme is among them) will be updated in separate
>>  > documents. Does anybody know where the file: scheme was updated?
>>
>>  Didn't know about rfc2396bis, and I just found a file-scheme specific draft
>>  here:
>>
>>  http://www.rnp.br/ietf/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-file-uri-00.txt
>>
>>  Haven't read it yet :-)
>
>And there is 
>http://www.rnp.br/ietf/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-file-uri-01.txt
>
>The latter mentions
>	Some applications generate URIs with no authority component 
>at all, such as
>	"file:/this/is/the/path".
>
>Which still doesn't address the issue of whether that should be considered RFC
>compliant or not.

Correct. For a bit of background, the URI mailing list at the W3C 
(see <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/>) has debated this for 
quite a while. Some folks want a new spec that says what developers 
should do; others want a spec that says what developers have been 
told in the past; still others want a spec with examples of what 
developers are doing; and many others want some fuzzy mix of the 
above.

There is no consensus on what the draft should be, so I'm freezing 
the content to basically what you see in the -01 document. Some 
people on the URI mailing list have said that they will possibly 
submit different drafts; if they do, the group can decide which seem 
better to them. Expect an RFC in maybe six months.

[[ BTW, I'm not on kde-core-devel, so you may need to forward this if 
they bounce non-members from posting. ]]

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium