Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> From: Daniel Veillard [mailto:veillard@r...] > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 7:27 PM > To: Julian Reschke > Cc: Dave Pawson; collin@s...; xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: 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
|
