file:/ vs file://<host>/ vs file:///
bug1 at iinet.net.au
Fri Nov 5 13:59:34 EET 2004
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 10:42:36 +0000
Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> On Fri Nov 5 00:01:55 2004, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > Why dont you stand up and do what you know is right rather than what
> > your told is right.
> Ah, indeed. Personally, I feel that XML would be better
> case-insensitive - should I write my XML files case insensitively, or
> should I follow existing specifications? According to you, I should
> do my own thing, because I know I'm right.
If a lot people thought XML should be case-insensitive and a minority of
peopel were prevting it from changing then i think you and the rest of
the majority should go and do your own thing.
> Common sense suggests that
> invention and arbitrary alteration of specifications is a
> stupendously dumb thing to do, however, since it breaks
Your talking about avoiding long term solutions in order to protect
against short term problems.
Specifications and standards should only be seen as a guide, how can
they ever evolve and improve if people blindly follow them.
If the file-uri-spec is just stating what RFC1738 says then why is it
Why is is it called -uri- if it only follows the url RFC, why not be
more accurate and call it the file-url-spec.
If you cant see that file:/<path> is a better solution then i think you
arent looking at the issue logically.
Clearly discussing this isnt going to change anything, so im out of
More information about the xdg