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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: file:///
From:       Reinhold Kainhofer <reinhold () kainhofer ! com>
Date:       2004-11-13 13:56:19
Message-ID: cn53q4$9sp$1 () sea ! gmane ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

<veröffentlicht & per Mail versendet>

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


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