Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: FW: New Version Notification for draft-kerwin-file-scheme-13.txt

[Matthew Kerwin <[e-mail]>]

On 2 January 2015 at 00:21, Sam Ruby <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> A few concrete examples are here:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg13511.html
> ​​
>
>
> It is my hope that by comparing notes we can converge.
> ​
> ​


​To be honest, a big reason for using RFC 3986 as a normative reference is
so I don't have to deal with things like hostnames. If those definitions
are good enough for the shiny new HTTP/1.1 (which actually uses hostnames)
then surely they're also sufficient for file: (which often doesn't).

BTW who on earth writes localhost as "2130706433"? Or more significantly,
who on earth *accepts* that as a valid URL?


​
>
>  I guess I could add support for backslashes. I suspect that would end up
>> in a non-normative appendix, along with the "|" drive letter separator
>> (as suggested in an earlier message, and currently being worked into the
>> next draft.)
>>
>
> I don't understand the thought process here. The current Internet-Draft
> takes care to document a select few browser specific syntaxes, but many
> others (including the ones you mention above) are not included.  What is
> the selection criteria you are using?
>
>
For the most part: things that aren't silly (big-endian integer encoding of
IPv4 addresses), things that aren't widely touted as obsolete (like
backslashes[1]), and as much as possible, things that go against the parent
standards (like trying to jimmy "/c|/" into RFC 3986).

Importantly, I don't want to include every codepath in every implementation
that exists, but I don't want the definition I write to *not* work in any
implementations.

[1] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2006/12/06/file-uris-in-windows.aspx


-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/