• From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@m...>
• To: "'richard@c...'" <richard@c...>
• Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 10:30:09 -0700

"Richard Tobin" <richard@c...> wrote in message
news:<8ekar1$1b6v$1@p...>...

> >So according to the RFC, the following are legal:
> >
> >file://localhost/c:/xml/xsl.bat
> >file:///c:/xml/xsl.bat
> 
> I had always supposed (until I looked at the RFC) that things like
> 
>   file:/foo/bar
> 
> were legal, since that's what Netscape gives me on Unix when I open a
> file.  I can't find any justification for it; is there a generic URI
> rule anywhere that says a URI with no //host part is equivalent to the
> same with an empty string as the host?

The specification of file: is somewhat fuzzy - RFC 1738 has been replaced
with RFC 2396 which does allow the short format you have above (and which is
the one I like the best - it also works with "file:/c:/foo").

Henrik 
 

***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: file: URIs and MS Windows
    • From: richard@c... (Richard Tobin)

• Prev by Date: Re: Babel (again) or standard taqs and aliases (UDEF, Bizcodes)
• Next by Date: Re: Bullard bounce back
• Previous by thread: Re: file: URIs and MS Windows
• Next by thread: Re: file: URIs and MS Windows
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread