Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Tom Passin wrote:
>The RFC (RFC 1738) defines them quite clearly, except for possibly the use
>of the colon after a drive letter ("c:").
Yes, the drive letter is the non-obvious point.
(Though to be pedantic, what RFC1738 says is that the path part of the
URL is a hierarchical directory path, not that it necessarily
corresponds directly to the hierarchy in the filesystem. I suppose
you *could* use backslashes (perhaps escaped) and get a very flat and
useless hierarchy.)
>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?
Thanks,
-- Richard
--
Spam filter: to mail me from a .com/.net site, put my surname in the headers.
"The Internet is really just a series of bottlenecks joined by high
speed networks." - Sam Wilson
***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************
|
