IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [art] Question regarding RFC 8089

Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> Mon, 17 December 2018 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <chris@w3.org>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68644129BBF for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:43:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 hKxP-NsrXxmm for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:43:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from raoul.w3.org (raoul.w3.org [128.30.52.128]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6AD6126F72 for <art@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:43:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 31-38-174.wireless.csail.mit.edu ([128.31.38.174]) by raoul.w3.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <chris@w3.org>) id 1gYzjC-00088M-SO for art@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 20:43:02 +0000
To: art@ietf.org
References: <f49638dc-4a0e-e03d-7e91-b968a1217679@redhat.com>
From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Message-ID: <b268875d-b173-83a1-45a6-1633365cc0cf@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 15:43:02 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:64.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/64.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f49638dc-4a0e-e03d-7e91-b968a1217679@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/DCwB5keixKppgfeko519-TGSZ0g>
Subject: Re: [art] Question regarding RFC 8089
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 20:43:08 -0000

That would be convenient.

On the other hand, the definition of a fragment depends o the Internet 
Media type, which filesystems typically don't have. But there is "MIME 
sniffing" based on file extensions, I guess.

On 14-Dec-18 05:37, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> Is it intentionally so that file URIs do not support neither a query 
> nor a fragment part?  At least, that is how I read RFC 8089 section 2 
> in combination with RFC 3986 section 3.
>
> (Asking because it can occasionally be convenient to host HTML pages 
> with "active content" that interacts with a URI's query part on a 
> local file system, and try to access them from a browser with 
> <file:/...?...> instead of <http://.../...?...> URIs.)
>
> Thanks,
> Stephan
>
> _______________________________________________
> art mailing list
> art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art

-- 
Chris Lilley
@svgeesus
Technical Director @ W3C
W3C Strategy Team, Core Web Design
W3C Architecture & Technology Team, Core Web & Media

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email