Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] file:///

From: Matthew Kerwin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 19:58:48 +1000

On 25 September 2014 18:54, t.petch <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> I do notice that since the last post I saw
> from you on this, in 2013, you have asked people to discuss this on
> github.  Following the link in the I-D, I get 'The page cannot be
> displayed' but really, that is irrelevant for me, since if I am going to
> discuss it, I want it to be here on the apps list, not on yet another
> list (the uri list would be an alternative).
>
>
To date it's actually mostly been discussed in private conversation via
email. I recently did a major rewrite, so draft 12 is a bit skeletal, but I
was planning on bringing it back to [email-masked] once I figured it could
stand up to a bit of serious scrutiny. Of course, it's a public document,
so if people want to chew it up right now they're more than welcome. If
there's a better place to discuss it, I can push out an update with a
better link.

Would anyone be upset if I said it should be discussed either on
[email-masked] or [email-masked] ? And is there a preference for one
over the other?

> I do use file:/// most days of the week in the flavour used by IE and
> would be happy to work to see it standardised; which then requires a WG
> to show sufficient interest, or an AD to feel motivated to take it on
> (which you also know:-).
>
>
The more people who can contribute, the better. (...I think.) Especially
people who actually use the scheme. If, one day, we can get it pushed
through the process, that would be brilliant.

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

---

From: Sean Leonard <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:57:07 -0700

On 9/25/2014 2:58 AM, Matthew Kerwin wrote:
> On 25 September 2014 18:54, t.petch <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>>wrote:
>
>
> To date it's actually mostly been discussed in private conversation 
> via email. I recently did a major rewrite, so draft 12 is a bit 
> skeletal, but I was planning on bringing it back to [email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]> once I figured it could stand up to a bit of 
> serious scrutiny. Of course, it's a public document, so if people want 
> to chew it up right now they're more than welcome. If there's a better 
> place to discuss it, I can push out an update with a better link.
>
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> or [email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]> ? And is there a preference for one over the other?

I would prefer it be discussed here on apps-discuss, thanks. :)

It would be nice to have a modern reference to the file URI (URL). I 
would veer towards documenting existing implementations (descriptive) 
rather than saying the One True Way it SHOULD/MUST be (prescriptive). I 
have not yet read any drafts on the topic.

Sean

> The more people who can contribute, the better. (...I think.) 
> Especially people who actually use the scheme. If, one day, we can get 
> it pushed through the process, that would be brilliant.
>
> Cheers
> -- 
>   Matthew Kerwin
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 17:20:03 +0000

> to show sufficient interest, or an AD to feel motivated to take it on

Personally, I'd love to see it deprecated and replaced by something more
useful/interoperable.  file: has problems where today it won't even
interoperate between two machines (because of different interpretations
of percent-encoded octets), so is only safe for use for files on the local
system or ASCII-only file paths.

If someone wants to write a draft on file: usage and the problems with it,
some useful source material is on Dave Risney's blog at:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2006/12/06/file-uris-in-windows.aspx
(and a few of the comments at the bottom of it).
I might even be convinced to help co-author such a draft if someone else
took the lead.

-Dave