- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:42:19 -0500
- To: Israel Viente <Israel_Viente@il.vio.com>(by way of Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>), uri@w3.org
At 02:03 PM 2003-03-05, Israel Viente wrote: >Hi, >1) Which RFC should I follow in case of file URIs 2396 or 1738 ? Why can't you satisfy both? What do you *need* to do where they are in conflict? >2) About the escaping of ':' separator of the drive letter. >I understood there is no need to escape the ":". But is >"<file:///e%3a/xxx.pdf>file:///e%3a/xxx.<file:///e%3a/xxx.pdf>pdf" also valid ? It is a valid URI. As a URI it is synonymous with the URI containing the unescaped ':' character. Whether all file: scheme processors will process this correctly is something I don't know. A file system that expects a drive letter at the head of a file path and fails to treat e%3a as synonymous with e: where it appears in the appropriate path segment for a drive letter to appear in a file: URL is strange indeed. Of course, stranger things have happened. >3) Relative file URIs : Is it equivalent to use "./foo.pdf" or >"<file:/./foo.pdf>file:/./foo.<file:/./foo.pdf>pdf" or >"<file:///./foo.pdf>file:///./foo.<file:///./foo.pdf>pdf" ? No. >Are the last 2 examples which uses scheme name and relative form , invalid >URIs ? Yes. >Thanks in advance >Israel
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:59:39 UTC