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

[Fred Drake]

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 22:45:18 +0100, Kenneth Wimer <wimer at suse.de> 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.


  -Fred

-- 
Fred L. Drake, Jr.    <fdrake at gmail.com>
Zope Corporation