file:/ vs file://<host>/ vs file:///
fdrake at gmail.com
Thu Nov 4 23:58:51 EET 2004
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 22:45:18 +0100, Kenneth Wimer <wimer at suse.de> wrote:
> Why don't we have a relative path definition (outside of the fact that
> it is not defined in RFCXXXX)? Wouldn't it be usefull and someowhat easy
> to implement (somewhat like KDE's file:/foo) in addition to the rest? It
> seems logical to me. Why does it make it dangerous as you say...I don't
> quite get that.
A relative path can be specified using a relative path just fine. For
example, if I want to refer the file "blah" in my current directory, I
This is called a "relative URI reference", and is discussed in RFC 2396.
Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at gmail.com>
More information about the xdg