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

Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> Sun, 04 January 2015 12:23 UTC

Return-Path: <phluid61@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40771A8824 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 04:23:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.027
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.027 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iSHgfAlEIX3C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 04:23:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22d.google.com (mail-qg0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 086891A87F2 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 04:23:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id z107so3298022qgd.32 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 04 Jan 2015 04:23:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=NQRHj8YXjsrUyE2QznV+ILKaKMYvOp4NonhqepjJ0IA=; b=VnqpWP6Ebi0PS8iKU7dJW96V448xXw2vntTsiRCMCx2ciMSDwn58diwcf77R1IpAlM Am9XpS3zKoITJ3oIdiiABX1O8N/EBnFeI1Qe9AdkSuo1fJqxfJrEPzZXDAs9GfXY1ITJ PsemRf024l36zMalExJ7IVS0qty/7gQfT3hMYRVu/76PUb5jOM6RgrL+g0msP+4wCUa7 eRN7sB4DNfQDwVFubvTc1V1nSe4YFSGii4LPAIeY3y9mmtrZB1Vx9VG22Sr22o17YJ8E G+51JEFoBbiENN3L2HAaqhMbglFM3Ed7lKGf1g7BOzLFl/ejteIgAYubgiwNXVSVTeqC 7ZSw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.165.148 with SMTP id i20mr70867297qay.67.1420374180235; Sun, 04 Jan 2015 04:23:00 -0800 (PST)
Sender: phluid61@gmail.com
Received: by 10.140.93.98 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 04:22:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54A557E1.6050502@intertwingly.net>
References: <20140926010029.26660.82167.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <EAACE200D9B0224D94BF52CF2DD166A425A68A90@ex10mb6.qut.edu.au> <CACweHNBEYRFAuw9-vfeyd_wf703cvM3ykZoRMqAokRFYG_O7hQ@mail.gmail.com> <DM2PR0201MB09602B351692D424A49C6B0DC3650@DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CACweHNBN_Bv=jeXQ_VwXi2HzHKNEwZJ1NiF-BJJo_9-mhO60gQ@mail.gmail.com> <54A557E1.6050502@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 22:22:59 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: v5hwDmqQsTANuNJOerONKqwFa3U
Message-ID: <CACweHNCQZg1U1u8U=-f6h0+BPnp6Wr_T=r_wGiPAbhTbuMCGWQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e012956567617d5050bd2a255"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/yzYDAoZKyhER8-OyRmKokFiO9ko
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: FW: New Version Notification for draft-kerwin-file-scheme-13.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:23:04 -0000

On 2 January 2015 at 00:21, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> 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/