--nextPart1521981.7xHWJ3jxHf
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Sunday 14 November 2004 22:12, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> On Sunday 14 November 2004 21:06, Leo Savernik wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 13. November 2004 12:44 schrieb Waldo Bastian:
> > > There are all kinds of very reasonable assumptions that you COULD
> > > make about what kind of base URL applications SHOULD assume on
> > > the command line or anywhere else, but that doesn't make it
> > > reality.
> >
> > So we basically leave everything as is, accepting and displaying
> > file:/abspath?
>
> We will accept file:/abspath but wherever we display it as a URL, we
> use file:///abspath as per the RFC.

Hopefully, we will never display it as a URL to the user because the=20
user couldn't care less for how a file:/// URL is supposed to look like=20
according to some RFC. Don't get me wrong. Following RFCs is a must,=20
but no RFC forces us to confront the user with RFC-compliant file:///=20
URLs. We just have to use correct URLs when we pass the URL to another=20
application.

So what's the problem with just showing KURL::path() instead of=20
KURL::prettyURL() to the user in case of (local) file-URLs?

Regards,
Ingo

--nextPart1521981.7xHWJ3jxHf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBBl927GnR+RTDgudgRAnAmAJ9Yw/LKw4AFMLvMxqxaxt01oJzxuACg1RlA
vj/BdA87lcA6YK32xHMk9v8=
=l0Cy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1521981.7xHWJ3jxHf--