Ingo Klöcker kloecker at
Sun Nov 14 22:35:38 GMT 2004

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 
user couldn't care less for how a file:/// URL is supposed to look like 
according to some RFC. Don't get me wrong. Following RFCs is a must, 
but no RFC forces us to confront the user with RFC-compliant file:/// 
URLs. We just have to use correct URLs when we pass the URL to another 

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list