- From: <Bertrand.Ibrahim@cui.unige.ch>
- Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 12:58:26 +0100
- To: www-amaya@w3.org
Maurizio Codogno <mau@beatles.cselt.it> said: > > From: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <frystyk@microsoft.com> > > ... Personally I like file:/D:/foo instead of file:///D:/foo > > as is in fact unambiguous (and legal) > > One or two slashes between file: and D: ? (I think two) It should normally be file://localhost/D:/foo and file:///D:/foo is just an accepted shortcut (see section G.3 of RFC 2396). However, section 3 of RFC 2396 says: absoluteURI = scheme ":" ( hier_part | opaque_part ) hier_part = ( net_path | abs_path ) [ "?" query ] net_path = "//" authority [ abs_path ] abs_path = "/" path_segments Therefore, if it were acceptable to have no explicit "authority" part in a "file:" URL (i.e. simple abs_path rather then net_path), the form file:/D:/foo would be legal. But this is not said anywhere explicitely. Anyway, file://D:/foo would definitely be incorrect, as D: would be interpreted as the "authority" part, whereas the authority should either be "localhost" or the actual machine name, not a drive letter. Just my $0.02. Peace, Bertrand Ibrahim. -------------------------------------------- Bertrand.Ibrahim@cui.unige.ch http://cui.unige.ch/eao/www/Bertrand.html
Received on Thursday, 9 March 2000 06:58:30 UTC