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

Hello John,

On 2015/01/02 03:15, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Thursday, 01 January, 2015 18:01 +0000 Graham Klyne
> <gk@ninebynine.org> 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"),

I'll let Graham confirm (or deny) this, but it seems to me that you are 
misunderstanding him. I think he is speaking about URIs in general 
providing the framework, with http/s: for web access and file: for local 
access.

Regards,   Martin.

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
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>