[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-bugs-dist
Subject:    [Bug 52226] URIs in the "file:" scheme are incorrect
From:       Joseph Reagle <reagle () mit ! edu>
Date:       2002-12-24 0:17:36
[Download RAW message or body]

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
     
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52226     




------- Additional Comments From reagle@mit.edu  2002-12-24 01:17 -------
Subject: Re:  URIs in the "file:" scheme are incorrect

On Monday 23 December 2002 17:55, Dawit Alemayehu wrote:
> > This is the second report in my efforts to identify Konqueror's
> > non-compliance with the URL/URI specifications. Like the first [1] this
> > one relates to Konq's non-compliance with URI schemes. (Unfortunately,
> > my cocerns about shortcuts as URI schemes was dismissed.)

The URI and URL specification define a grammar/BNF mechanism and means of 
registering URI schemes. I don't mean to annoy you, I'm just asking that 
you conform to the specifications and improve usability -- for me at least 
<smile/>. I sat down to finally document my concerns with Konqueror's URIs, 
I'm not saying you are bad people or anything! I love the KDE project and I 
look forward to using Konqueror as my sole browser.

  This "generic URI" syntax consists of a sequence of four main components:
      <scheme>://<authority><path>?<query>
  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt

  Registration Procedures for URL Scheme Names
  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2717.txt

Registering the schemes in the IETF would probably be a major pain in the 
ass (see [1]), I wouldn't recommend it. Consequently, I wouldn't recommend 
making them look like schemes.

[1] http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/2445

> > 1. This is counter to the conventions already used in Opera and
> > Mozilla, makes my transitions all the more awkward
> Internet keywords.  Even more problematic is the way we have a default
> search engine which allows you to simply type the the text and viola'
> your text is searched for in the default search engine you specified. 

I haven't been able to do this if what I type in doesn't have a space in it. 
(For instance, if I just type "test" in the address bar I get a malformed 
URI error.) Consequently, since I often search for single words and since I 
can no longer change the default search engine, this feature is of zero 
utility to me. (Might be to others, I'm just one data point among many I'm 
sure.)

> > 2. It's more difficult to type (shift-semi-colon) than a space -- might
> > seem trivial, but I use these a lot!
>
> Well this might be a vaild statement, but is still a personal preference.
>  I use these shortcuts a lot too and since the days of KDE 2.x and now am
> accustomed to typing the ":" as compared to simply pressing the space
> bar.  I am sure I can say the same thing about having to re-learn how to
> correctly type the shortcut keywords (re: usability).  I am also sure
> more than a few KDE users will make the same argument.

Ok, so we would then have to balance the interests of the various 
constituencies. Data-point: as a RSI sufferer a shift and a colon on a 
normal QWERTY keyboard is one of the nastiest key combinations to force on 
a person: an extended extension of one pinkie and an extension of the other 
at the same time! Just for a shortcut!

> If we
> followed your argument we have to get rid of all of the KDE specific URL
> schemes that interface with the many io-slaves KDE supports, ex: man:/,
> sftp://, smb:// (which btw is used in other desktops as well even though
> it does not exist in RFC 1738).  See the protocols section in kinfocenter
> for all the protocols KDE supports.

Yes, and as someone who is presently trying to register a media-type it can 
be a pain to register these things, and it requires one to give security 
consideration to the schemes. But I'll tell you I'm not real keen to be 
looking at html documents with a proliferation of hypertextual links in 
them with these schemes. I'm glad folks are doing an audit of this stuff.

> > The URIs for files on the local file system are incorrect.  RFC1738
> > (section 3.10) specifies the syntax for the "file:" scheme:
> > file://<host>/<path> So, like in Opera or Phoenix, the URI to a user
> > directory would be: file:///home/user/reagle/ .
>
> Where again is the problem ? Hmm.. let us see. I launch Opera 6.1 and
> types /home/dawit. Opera correctly completes it to
> file://localhost/home/dawit since it is an internet browser. Now I type
> file:/tmp/ and what do you know, it does not change what I typed, but
> correctly shows me the requested directory.  

It does for me, (Opera 6.03) it rewrites the URI to:
 file://localhost/tmp/
that way, I can hand it off to wget, curl, or a python script via cut/paste 
and no worries! I'm pretty sure it did with the 6.1 version I tried to. If 
not, I'd write Håkon! <smile/>

>Does that me Opera is
> non-compliant as well ?  Or is the problem that we do not default into
> what Opera defaults into ?  I currently do not have access to Mozilla or
> I would have tested there as well.  I bet it works similar to how
> konqueror does since its ancestor did the same thing.  I have no idea nor
> do I care what Phoneix does, but if it works in Mozilla and does not
> there then this bug report belongs there, no ?

Yes, if I saw this non-conformance and it was causing me problems, I'd file 
bug reports there too.

Thanks for you efforts Dawit!
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]