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

[Daniel Veillard]

On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 08:07:59PM -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 11:01:55AM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > Your told by RFC1738 that file:// is correct, but you know that file:/
> > is a better long term solution.
> 
>   I don't believe at all that file:/foo is right in any ways. Filenames
> are enough of a bad UI interface, no need to inflict users a pseudo URI
> scheme. And outside of user view, i.e. in data, documents, etc. then
> file:///foo is the right way currently.

  As much as I dislike the idea of reopening this thread there is news
at the IETF on the topic so this should probably be looked at.
  Someone finally went though the work of trying to bring a successor
to RFC 1738 "file" protocol definition, it is a very early draft, prone
to be changed a lot before carrying much normative value but still worth
checking :

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-file-uri-02.txt

Section 3.3 states:

  3.3  Use of hostname and host name checking

   The file URI specification calls for using the actual host name as
   the name authority and allowing it to be omitted.  This practice is
   rarely followed, and frequently is not checked.  Some applications
   generate URIs with no authority component at all, such as
   "file:/this/is/the/path".

Seems to me that they suggest not using it, but allowing it to be processed.
But the wording is awfully unclear - probably because they know it is a 
sensitive issue :-) - maybe some feedback is in order.
Also it could be a good idea to double-check suggested practice within f.d.o.
does not conflict with the new draft.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Desktop team http://redhat.com/
veillard at redhat.com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/