Re: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: draft-kerwin-file-scheme

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, 01 January, 2015 18:01 +0000 Graham Klyne
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>...
> For me, the real value in moving towards a consensus
> specification for file: URIs is that it would provide a common
> file naming framework for software libraries that unify local
> and web access to resources.  The capability is substantially
> achievable today based on the available and informal
> specifications, but there are a number of problematic edge
> cases (like Windows drive letters) that can cause interop
> problems.  

Of course, the more we move in the direction of what sounds to
me like a desire to use "file:" to reference resources that may
be either local or remote ("web access"), potentially with
multiple web locations, the closer we get to "file:" meeting the
design criteria of persistence and location-independence that
characterize URNs.

I'm not commenting right now on whether I think that would be
good or bad (not sure I even have an opinion given how widely
things that appear to be URIs with a scheme of "file" are used),
but these waters are muddy already and I think that, if we
decide to muddy them further, it should be with our eyes open.

  john