• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Namespace URI question
• From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>
• Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 00:38:11 GMT
• Cc:
• In-reply-to: <OE45lF8HGmCvoXM7e0C000037b8@h...>
• Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh

>The use of file: URIs are fraught with so many hassles regarding
>their proper construction and security that it's darned tough to
>justify using them.

I disagree.  It's useful for a program that handles URIs - an XML
parser, for example - to be able to handle local files without
having to special-case them everywhere.  file: URLs provide a
natural way to do that.

>And given that many, if not all, fileservers can make use of webdav
>it'd be just as easy to use http URLs.

Fileserver?  I'm supposed to have a fileserver to access the files
on my local disk?

And if I could access all the files on my computer using http: URLs,
all the security problems would just be moved.  My web browser won't
follow a link from an http: page to a file: page; if I could access
the same files through http: URLs the security would be worse, not
better.

-- Richard

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Namespace URI question
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>

• References:
  • Re: Namespace URI question
    • From: "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@h...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Namespace URI question
• Next by Date: RE: Namespace URI question
• Previous by thread: Re: Namespace URI question
• Next by thread: Re: Namespace URI question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread