Re: tiff multi-document files

[George Karabin <gkarabin pobox com>]

On Jan 19, 2004, at 1:39 AM, Alexander Larsson wrote:

> On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 11:34, Jens Finke wrote:
> > Actually, I think it should be possible to write a gnome-vfs module,  
> > which
> > adds a new URI scheme and handles such tiff files properly. If it  
> > behaves
> > like a directory from the gnome-vfs client point of view, eog will
> > automatically use the collection view for this then.
>
> This is called "chained uris", and gnome-vfs has some code for it.
> However, at the moment it just doesn't work. My hope is that eventually
> we'll get it fixed though.


I looked at the archives for this list on chaining and the shared vfs  
ideas on xdg-list. Has anything come of your idea for a common VFS URI  
spec:  
https://listman.redhat.com/archives/xdg-list/2003-September/ 
msg00110.html ? Do you think it makes any sense to attempt to fix  
chaining before attempting such a spec?

Regarding a VFS URI spec, I thought I'd go looking for relevant  
internet standards and drafts, and note them here. They might make for  
some good references for requirements gathering for anyone thinking  
about such a spec.

Anyway, RFC 2396 provides a general BNF for URIs that seems  
workable[1]. RFC 2396bis was in the running to succeed it, but expired  
in December. It had expanded on encoding and escaping guidelines, which  
2396 was really vague on, but basically left the specifics for URI  
components to TBD docs that describe those URIs. I.e., no conclusive  
help here anytime soon. I don't know why it lost momentum, and am not  
sure if there's any sense trying to salvage some of its ideas or not.  
Maybe it makes sense to get URIs that VFS projects care about into ietf  
drafts? Looks to be a slow-moving standards body - dunno if it's worth  
the effort or not - I don't have any experience with standards bodies.

RFC 1738 provides rules for some specific URI types. RFC1738bis is an  
update based on 2396bis, so it's left hanging as well.

The ssh URI draft that Jeff Waugh referred to some time back is based  
on other drafts that are based on the expired 2396bis, so it seems  
likely that it'll  expire as well unless 239bis picks up again.

Interesting RFCs:
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2396.txt
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1738.txt
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2079.txt
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2483.txt
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2168.txt

Other relevant/interesting drafts:
http://www.gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/draft-fielding-uri- 
rfc2396bis-03.txt (expired)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-rfc1738bis-01.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crhertel-smb-url-06.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-secsh-scp-sftp-ssh-uri 
-01.txt


- George

[1] It's old enough that for all I know gnome-vfs or kio could be based  
on it. I have no idea if that's the case or not.