file:/ vs file://<host>/ vs file:///
veillard at redhat.com
Thu Nov 4 19:59:14 EET 2004
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 ...
> We can argue semantics forever, but any
> standards organization who defines file:/foo as *anything* else is obviously
> completely out to lunch and should be ignored.
Before XML everybody though that markup was case insensitive, and got
proved wrong ...
> 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
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/
More information about the xdg