W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > May 2003

Re: Some clarification on file URLs

From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 14:36:13 -0400
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: "'Israel Viente'" <israel_viente@il.vio.com>, uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030527183613.GN29061@skunk.reutershealth.com>

Larry Masinter scripsit:

> Perhaps you could help them. My suggestion for a writeup
> of "file:" is that the document might
> 
>  - examine what various current URI interpreters do
>    on various platforms
>    (IE, Mozilla, Opera, Safari, Java, Perl on
>    Windows 98/ME/2K/XP vs. Mac vs. Linux)

Well, here are a few datapoints:

1) Mozilla Firebird on Linux ignores the authority specification.

2) Mozilla Firebird on Win32 will push an authority specification that
looks like a drive name into the first component of the path and interpret
it as such.  It seems to ignore any attempt to dereference a URI with
an authority specification not of this form.

3) IE 6.0 will accept either a SMB hostname or a drive name in the
authority field.  A drive letter will also be accepted in the authority
field as per Mozilla Firebird/Win32.  This seems to be the only way
that IE will accept an SMB hostname in an URL.

4) Lynx (and presumably other libwww applications) treats an authority
specification other than the empty string or "localhost" by treating
the file: URL as an ftp: URL.


>  - recommend common platform-independent practice

My recommendation (obviously based on not enough data):  Always use an
empty authority field unless you are accessing a file via SMB, in which
case the SMB hostname should be placed in the authority field.
Mozilla/Win32 should be fixed to accept SMB names in this position.

-- 
MEET US AT POINT ORANGE AT MIDNIGHT BRING YOUR DUCK OR PREPARE TO FACE WUGGUMS
John Cowan   http://www.reutershealth.com   jcowan@reutershealth.com
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2003 14:38:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:31 GMT