file:///

[Dawit A.]

On Saturday 13 November 2004 05:16, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> > 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...
>
> From what I can tell, both file:/path/to/something as well
> as /path/to/something are correct, file:///path/to/something is not, but
> file://localhost/path/to/something is again correct according to these
> RFCs.

Not really. RFC 1808 and 2396 do indeed define the "file" protocol as you 
described it above, but not RFC 1738 which states:

fileurl        = "file://" [ host | "localhost" ] "/" fpath

So if the authority (login & host info) component is missing, then 
file:///somepath/anotherpath is indeed valid according to that definition. 
The problem really was the fact that when they updated the spec, they never 
ever state that they obsolete RFC 1738. They simply say it updates RFC 1738. 
This is true even for RFC 2396bis. That to me means that things like how the 
"file" protocol should be defined are purposefully left open for 
interpretation by the implementors...

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