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

Kenneth Wimer wimer at
Fri Nov 5 00:37:51 EET 2004

* Fred Drake <fdrake at> [Nov 04. 2004 23:00]:
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 22:45:18 +0100, Kenneth Wimer <wimer at> wrote:
> > 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.
> A relative path can be specified using a relative path just fine.  For
> example, if I want to refer the file "blah" in my current directory, I
> would use:
>   blah
> This is called a "relative URI reference", and is discussed in RFC 2396.

So the current directory is "  " and a file within it named "blah" is
simply "blah"? This makes little sense to me and doesn't seem to follow
the logic behind the whole thing.

SUSE LINUX - a Novell business
Scheinbare Rechtschreibfehler beruhen auf einer individuellen

More information about the xdg mailing list