PATCH:KURL

[Dawit A.]

On Tuesday 29 April 2003 09:55, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 April 2003 09:52, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> >  How about having prettyURL() return whatever looks nice and maybe is an
> > URL (i.e. file:/tmp ), while having the others returning file:///tmp ? I
> > think all the arguments against file:/// are basically "it doesn't look
> > pretty", and prettyURL() could handle that.
>
> I am running with a patch that does that but I fail to see any benefit so
> far.

There is absolutely no benefit to doing that.  Either we do file:/// or we 
stick with what we are currently doing.  This issue is not just a matter of 
aesthetics, it is a functional issue albeit for legacy compatibility 
reasons...  :)

Regards,
Dawit A.