[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> From: Daniel Veillard [mailto:veillard@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 7:27 PM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: Dave Pawson; collin@seu.edu.cn; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Who provide for the syntax for "file:///c:/" ?
>
>
> 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
They wouldn't really need to. It would be a good achievement to get
consensus on the *right* syntax, and have that one supported everywhere. As
far as I can tell, the only issue is how to map the drive letter.
> 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,
At least there is a new Internet Draft. I''m sure the authors will
appreciate constructive feedback.
Julian
--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
|
