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

[Daniel Veillard]

On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 07:48:51PM +0100, Kenneth Wimer wrote:
> * Daniel Veillard <veillard at redhat.com> [Nov 04. 2004 19:07]:
> > > 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'
> 
> So the file foo which exist in the directory that I am currently in is
> file:///foo and /blah/blub would be file:////blah/blub ?

  no. file:///foo is file://localhost/foo which means the local file /foo
similary after canonicalization file:////blah/blub is 
file://localhost/blah/blub i.e. /blah/blub on local host.
There is no syntactic definition yet for paths relative to the current
directory. This makes pushing any semantic for file:/foo in other specs
especially dangerous.

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/