Difference between revisions of "URI/File scheme/Plan of action"
(→Plan of action for updating the 'file' URI scheme: added intro statement, basically just to add a backlink) |
(→Plan of Action for updating file: URI specification) |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
What is useful common practice for getting interoperable results when creating file: URIs? | What is useful common practice for getting interoperable results when creating file: URIs? | ||
− | Based on | + | == Recommend useful practice based on implementations == |
+ | |||
+ | Based on the survey of implementations, recommend action: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * What should URI creators write for file: URIs to be interoperable with most current implementations | ||
+ | * What should (new or updated) file: URI interpreters do to handle the diversity of file URIs likely to be seen | ||
+ | * Update the Proposed Standard for file: URIs to be consistent with common current practice, such that progression to Draft Standard (multiple, independent, interoperable implementations) is likely. | ||
— [[User:Lmm|Lmm]] 09:35, 21 Jun 2005 (MDT) | — [[User:Lmm|Lmm]] 09:35, 21 Jun 2005 (MDT) | ||
− | |||
− | Here is | + | == List of implementations to Survey == |
+ | |||
+ | (originally proposed by Robert Herriot, updated by [[User:Lmm|Lmm]]): | ||
+ | |||
+ | Here is a [[Wikipedia:en:List of web browsers|list of browsers]] that we should cover: | ||
− | *[[Wikipedia:en:Mozilla Firefox|Firefox]]: Windows 2000/XP | + | *[[Wikipedia:en:Mozilla Firefox|Firefox]]: Windows 2000/XP (maybe Windows 98), Mac OS X, Linux |
*[[Wikipedia:en:Netscape Browser|Netscape]]: same as above | *[[Wikipedia:en:Netscape Browser|Netscape]]: same as above | ||
*[[Wikipedia:en:Mozilla Application Suite|Mozilla]]: same as above (there is a new version, even though I thought that Firefox was supposed to replace Mozilla) | *[[Wikipedia:en:Mozilla Application Suite|Mozilla]]: same as above (there is a new version, even though I thought that Firefox was supposed to replace Mozilla) | ||
*[[Wikipedia:en:Opera (web browser)|Opera]]: same as above | *[[Wikipedia:en:Opera (web browser)|Opera]]: same as above | ||
− | *[[Wikipedia:en:Windows Explorer| | + | *[[Wikipedia:en:Windows Explorer|Internet Explorer]]: same Windows OSs as above; Internet Explorer on Macintosh. (No Linux) |
*[[Wikipedia:en:Safari (web browser)|Safari]]: Mac OS X | *[[Wikipedia:en:Safari (web browser)|Safari]]: Mac OS X | ||
*[[Wikipedia:en:Konqueror|Konqueror]]: Linux (KDE) | *[[Wikipedia:en:Konqueror|Konqueror]]: Linux (KDE) | ||
*[[Wikipedia:en:Galeon|Galeon]]: Linux (Gnome) | *[[Wikipedia:en:Galeon|Galeon]]: Linux (Gnome) | ||
− | + | The list above covers the major browsers and a few minor ones. We should focus on the latest of each; perhaps some older versions with a large installed base should be included. | |
− | + | Among various questions to survey, in addition to drive letters, remote mounts, add "file" access to local files with a) no hostname, b) "localhost", c) the actual host name. Does "file" accesses remote hosts either via their name or IP address when not remotely mounted? My experience with this last question is that it fails with the browsers that I have tried. | |
− | + | In addition, check for variation with different character encodings (especially for Asian languages). |
Revision as of 11:01, 18 August 2005
This is the plan of action for updating the 'file' URI scheme. It is part of the W3C URI Interest Group's 'file' URI scheme update project.
Survey implementations of file: URIs
What do they implement? How do they map file: URIs to various operating system special situations, including handling of character set transformations, inclusion of drive letters, remote mount directories, individual mount points, symbolic links or redirections?
What is useful common practice for getting interoperable results when creating file: URIs?
Recommend useful practice based on implementations
Based on the survey of implementations, recommend action:
- What should URI creators write for file: URIs to be interoperable with most current implementations
- What should (new or updated) file: URI interpreters do to handle the diversity of file URIs likely to be seen
- Update the Proposed Standard for file: URIs to be consistent with common current practice, such that progression to Draft Standard (multiple, independent, interoperable implementations) is likely.
— Lmm 09:35, 21 Jun 2005 (MDT)
List of implementations to Survey
(originally proposed by Robert Herriot, updated by Lmm):
Here is a list of browsers that we should cover:
- Firefox: Windows 2000/XP (maybe Windows 98), Mac OS X, Linux
- Netscape: same as above
- Mozilla: same as above (there is a new version, even though I thought that Firefox was supposed to replace Mozilla)
- Opera: same as above
- Internet Explorer: same Windows OSs as above; Internet Explorer on Macintosh. (No Linux)
- Safari: Mac OS X
- Konqueror: Linux (KDE)
- Galeon: Linux (Gnome)
The list above covers the major browsers and a few minor ones. We should focus on the latest of each; perhaps some older versions with a large installed base should be included.
Among various questions to survey, in addition to drive letters, remote mounts, add "file" access to local files with a) no hostname, b) "localhost", c) the actual host name. Does "file" accesses remote hosts either via their name or IP address when not remotely mounted? My experience with this last question is that it fails with the browsers that I have tried.
In addition, check for variation with different character encodings (especially for Asian languages).