file:/ vs file://<host>/ vs file:///

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Thursday 04 November 2004 18:59, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 12:18:57PM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 11:35:54AM -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > > Either you have an authority or not. In any case you cannot have
> > >    file://foo
> > >
> > >   Now what semantic would you provide for
> > >    file:/foo ?
> >
> > file:/foo == file://localhost/foo
> >
> > Everybody already knows this.
>
>   it's not in any spec, sorry ...

At least approx. 50% of the linux desktop users know this (KDE supports file:/
foo).

> > The "correct" form of a file url/uri is definitely file://localhost/foo.
> > However, software should support input of file:/foo to allow for the
> > standard way *everyone* already uses their software, and (although I'd be
> > willing to give up this last point) should display file:/foo to avoid
> > confusing-looking visual noise. 99% of computer users have no idea what a
> > localhost is, despite having some vague idea of what www.google.com is.
>
>   use file:///foo , do NOT accept file:/foo. Nobody has to type 'localhost'
>
> > Therefore auto-inserting "localhost" on their URL bar will not help
> > anyone use their software more efficiently, and we shouldn't do it.
>
>   do like Mozilla does file:///etc/hosts , like 2396 suggests

I don't think "normal" users will understand why they have to put 3 slashes 
infront of the path. And I don't think file can ever be combined with 
anything else than localhost, so it's redundant.

As Glenn said:

> Common sense should prevail if the RFC's conflict.

Bye
Alex
-- 
Work: alexander.neundorf at jenoptik.com - http://www.jenoptik-los.de
Home: neundorf at kde.org                - http://www.kde.org
      alex at neundorf.net               - http://www.neundorf.net