proposal for file: uri standard

Waldo Bastian bastian at
Mon Mar 29 15:16:59 EEST 2004

Hash: SHA1

On Mon March 29 2004 13:03, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> Here is some stuff I wrote down in order to standardized the use of
> file: uris as used on the desktop. Most of it actually follows from the
> various standards involved, so it should not be contentious, but its
> good to have it written down plainly.
> Opinions?

I'm ok with the general direction.

> Given a URI like this we can unescape it into a hostname, and a string
> of octets (of undefined encoding), which we wish to map to a UNIX
> filename.

Suggest: "which maps 1:1 to a UNIX filename"

> Backwards compatibility:
> ------------------------
> Some current apps generate URIs of the form "file:/<path>". These
> are not correct according to RFC1738, so they should not be
> generated. However, its recommended that code correctly handle such
> URIs as input.

Suggest: "it is recommended that such URIs are interpreted as file URIs with 
an empty hostname."

Apart from that I have the suspicion that the hostname part is 
under-specified. E.g. what does an empty hostname mean, should "localhost" be 
handled differently, should the hostname be a FQDN?

- -- 
^ bastian at | Is your software SUSE LINUX READY? | bastian at
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the xdg mailing list