From kde-core-devel Sat Nov 13 13:56:19 2004 From: Reinhold Kainhofer Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:56:19 +0000 To: kde-core-devel Subject: Re: file:/// Message-Id: X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=110035418931410 Waldo Bastian wrote: > 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 This draft is next to useless. It merely describes the current situation, and furthermore contains typos. E.g. file://usr/local/bin/ is clearly and completely wrong. That should rather be file:///usr/local/bin/. > 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. Yes, I fully support this. Actually, I don't see a reason why the file: scheme should only use such a very limited subset of rfc 2396bis as the rfc 1738 was. Reinhold