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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: file:///
From:       Waldo Bastian <bastian () kde ! org>
Date:       2004-11-13 12:19:04
Message-ID: 200411131319.08204.bastian () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


On Saturday 13 November 2004 12:57, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> On Saturday 13 November 2004 11:40, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> > However, the preamble to rfc 2396bis says the specific schemes described
> > in rfc 1738 (the file: scheme is among them) will be updated in separate
> > documents. Does anybody know where the file: scheme was updated?
>
> Didn't know about rfc2396bis, and I just found a file-scheme specific draft
> here:
>
> http://www.rnp.br/ietf/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-file-uri-00.txt
>
> Haven't read it yet :-)

And there is  
http://www.rnp.br/ietf/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-file-uri-01.txt

The latter mentions
	Some applications generate URIs with no authority component at all, such as 
	"file:/this/is/the/path".

Which still doesn't address the issue of whether that should be considered RFC 
compliant or not.

I would like to see a draft that explicitly makes the authority component 
optional in the file-scheme because it makes no sense to have it if the 
hostname is not specified anyway. rfc2396bis leaves plenty of room for that 
since it offers the possibility of both ("//" authority path-abempty) and 
(path-absolute) for hier-part. Although most schemes will pick either one and 
stick with that, there is nothing that prevents the file scheme to allow 
both. All it takes is to state that an undefined authority should be 
considered equivalent to an empty authority.
[CC'ing the author of the draft]

Cheers,
Waldo
-- 
bastian@kde.org   |   Free Novell Linux Desktop 9 Evaluation Download
bastian@suse.com  |   http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/eval.html

[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]

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