W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2004

Re: Are we done with draft-hoffman-ftp-uri-02.txt?

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 19:55:17 +0100
To: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <41868695.6A8A@xyzzy.claranet.de>

Alun Jones wrote:

> It now seems, from your results and mine combined, that the
> behaviour of FTP implementations isn't as simple as choosing
> one or other behaviour - that some implementations flip
> between one behaviour and another, based on some internal
> logic

Makes sense.  But we can't have a dot in ftp URLs with 2396bis:
<ftp://example/./stuff> is the same as <ftp://example/stuff>.

Or do you consider <ftp://example/%2e/stuff> to avoid a CD / ?

ftp://stamber:stamber@publish.reutershealth.com/%2e/ftptest.txt
ftp://stamber:stamber@publish.reutershealth.com/%2f/ftptest.txt

Both work as expected with Mozilla 3 (Netscape 3.0):  %2e gets
ftptest.txt in the start directory, %2f goes to the root first.

ftp://stamber:stamber@publish.reutershealth.com/./ftptest.txt
goes to the root (oops, okay ;-).

ftp://stamber:stamber@publish.reutershealth.com//ftptest.txt
goes to the root (okay).

For harder tests we need a structure /one/two/one with 2 files
/one/test and /one/two/one/test, and ftpd start CWD /one/two.

But is this relevant for Paul's draft ?  He said that it's
messy, and that's obviously correct.  And recommending URLs
<ftp://example/%2e/relative/path> resp.
<ftp://example/%2f/absolute/path> is dubious, or isn't it ?

                            Bye, Frank
Received on Monday, 1 November 2004 18:58:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:35 GMT