[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 06:40:47PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Well,
>
> actually things *are* progressing:
>
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffkohn-rfc1738bis-00.txt>
Oops I rejoiced too fast apparently, I see no update or improvement
to the definition of the file protocol definition :-\
I also really wonder if Microsoft tools would be made compliant to
a new revision of that draft, that would be the only way to be sure
that all implementation actually converge in the end, and somewhat I
have doubts that they would drop support for
file://c:/sgml/uriincl/uriIncl.xml
or file:/c:/sgml/uriincl/uriIncl.xml
if the new file scheme definition remained in the spirit of the old one.
Actually file has never been implemented as a protocol, even 1738 warned
about this, really this should be defined as a special scheme using
the opaque_part derivation of absoluteURI if one want to get something out
of a redefinition.
I'm still pessimistic about this,
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard@redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
|
