file:/ vs file://<host>/ vs file:///
bug1 at iinet.net.au
Thu Nov 4 17:39:35 EET 2004
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 10:02:16 -0500
Daniel Veillard <veillard at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 11:45:36PM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > The file-uri-spec says that "file:/<path>" shouldnt be used as it
> > isnt correct according to RFC1738.
> > The file-uri-spec says we should use file://localhost/<path> or
> > file:///<path>
> > RFC2396 says the format of a URI is
> > absoluteURI = scheme ":" ( hier_part | opaque_part )
> > hier_part = ( net_path | abs_path ) [ "?" query ]
> > net_path = "//" authority [ abs_path ]
> > abs_path = "/" path_segments
> > Clearly file:/<path> is compatable with RFC2396
> > The "//" seperator is meant to represent a network location. I think
> > its very unlikely that the file scheme would be used with a remote
> > host, so it doenst make much sense. Using "localhost" or not
> > specifying a host as a way of trying to negating the meaning of "//"
> > is confusing and not necessary.
> > As "//localhost" is a net_path redirected to the the local machine,
> > why not just use "/", the abs_path, it seems it was designed for
> > this purpose.
> no. RFC2396 does not override RFC1738 on the matter of defining the
> protocol schemes.
RFC1738 says file://<host>/<path> is ok, this rfc doesnt mention
abs_path at all, it only talks about net_path.
RFC2396 says file://<host>/<path> and file:/<path> are both ok.
I think it would be ok if file-uri-spec suggested that
file://<host>/<path> only be used with a remote host, but as the
protocol used to contact that host isnt specified in the url i dont see
how it can ever be uses effictively.
Its wrong to ignore abs_path in a document that should be trying to
clear up the issue.
> that would be in direct conflict with the current state of the RFC
> at the
> IETF (unless someone can point to an RFC overriding 1738 on the matter
> of the "file" protocol description).
RFC1738 doesnt address abs_path, so its not correct to judge the
validity of file:/ against it.
RFC 2396 addresses both net_path and abs_path so i think it should be
seen as a more relevant document.
Common sense should prevail if the RFC's conflict.
More information about the xdg