[apps-discuss] Implementation (was - Re: Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme)

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 4/13/2016 3:46 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> On 13/04/2016 09:28, Matthew Kerwin wrote:
>>> >
>>>> >>    o  the use of slashes to denote boundaries between directory
>>>> levels
>>>> >>       of a hierarchical file system; and
>>>> >>
>>>> >>    o  the requirement that client software convert the file URI
>>>> into a
>>>> >>       file name in the local file name conventions.
>>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >*** Hmmm. A requirement like that moves this from being a URI
>>> >specification to being a file protocol specification...
>>> >
>>> >
>> Thank you for saying that, you've triggered a bit of a light-bulb moment
>> for me about why I've had so much trouble getting this draft straight
>> in my
>> head -- maybe it is actually a protocol spec. That said, I'd rather
>> cut it
>> back to be a URI scheme spec. If we need to define the protocol in
>> future,
>> then that's a future issue.
>>
>
> Yes, I think staying clear of "protocol" is probably best.


One of the challenges in writing Internet technical specifications, is 
to make sure that the focus is on bits over the wire, rather than code 
on a machine.  The former is system-independent.  The latter always 
suffers the risk of being implementation-dependent.

Even the primary use of file: for "local" environments needs this 
distinction, in terms of talking only about abstractions.

The writing style requirements for making this work well have a variety 
of characteristics and common practices.  I think there's no guide for 
this, though.  So it's more clinical art than mechanical science.

One, trivial suggestion that occurs to me is to not use the word 
implementation -- unless specification reviewing implementation history 
or the like -- and instead use the word 'use'.  It's a gimmick, but it 
might help.

d/


-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net