Larry Masinter wrote:
I think it is a bad idea to issue new documents for
URI schemes merely to move those schemes to Historic
status, "wais", "prospero", and even "gopher".
AFAIK the idea is to split 1738 into the included URI schemes
(you forgot to mention news: and nntp:). When that's ready
1738 can be moved to "historic", or "obsoleted by" [list of
the individual documents, incl. wais: and prospero:]
Then it's also possible to move some individual documents to
"historic". But not all, some of us still use news:, gopher:,
file:, ftp:, and telnet:. Maybe not always in the original
sense for gopher:, but it's still nice to create URLs for
simple "open [- send query] - get answer - close" protocols.
I don't believe the gopher protocol or the gopher URI scheme
will ever move to full standard.
There's nothing to replace it, if it's (ab)used to create
whois / rwhois / finger / echo / daytime / etc. URLs. And
"historic" isn't the same as "obsolescent". Why not wait until
it's dead before you bury it ?
Bye, Frank
--
Discussed in <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri:201>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf