file:///

[Dawit A.]

On Friday 12 November 2004 17:34, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Rolf Magnus wrote:
> >> The syntax is actually protocol://[host]/path. The // is mandatory.
> >
> >For what reason? Why is it so absolutely necessary to add a dummy //,
> > even if the protocol doesn't support a concept of a host?
>
> Because "the standard says so".

That could not be any further from the truth. How URLs should be represented 
is about as clear as the theory of parallel universes! OK I am exaggerating a 
bit, but just read RFC 1738/1808 and then 2396 and tell me you do not come 
away confused more than before you read those RFCs...

> >If a standard contains something that doesn't make sense and that nobody
> >likes, maybe it should be changed instead of everyone blindly following
> > it just because "the standard says so".
>
> Agreed. But we're talking about an RFC and one of the core concepts of the
> Internet. Not that I expect many applications to break, but changing the
> RFC might not be the easiest thing to do.

KURL does not comply with any one of the RFCs per say. It complies with parts 
of all which is one of the problems with it. Anyways, that is besides the 
point...

-- 
Regards,
Dawit A.
"Preach what you practice, practice what you preach"