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@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf