file:/ vs file://<host>/ vs file:///
wimer at suse.de
Thu Nov 4 23:45:18 EET 2004
* Daniel Veillard <veillard at redhat.com> [Nov 04. 2004 22:23]:
> 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.
Cool. Makes sense to me. Thanks for the explanation.
Why don't we have a relative path definition (outside of the fact that
it is not defined in RFCXXXX)? Wouldn't it be usefull and someowhat easy
to implement (somewhat like KDE's file:/foo) in addition to the rest? It
seems logical to me. Why does it make it dangerous as you say...I don't
quite get that.
SUSE LINUX - a Novell business
Scheinbare Rechtschreibfehler beruhen auf einer individuellen
More information about the xdg