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

RE: Can someone answer my questions , please

From: by way of Martin Duerst <Israel_Viente@il.vio.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:50:14 -0500
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20030310105008.055328b8@localhost>
To: uri@w3.org



Thank you for clarifying issues 2 & 3.

About issue 1.

In RFC 1738's definition of "file:" URIs, there _must_ be a host field, 
although the host can be omitted.
So, if you're asking is it 'legal' to write 
'<file:/e:/xxx.pdf'>file:/e:/xxx.<file:/e:/xxx.pdf'>pdf', the answer is no, 
not according to RFC 1738, you must write 
'<file:///e:/xxx.pdf'>file:///e:/xxx.<file:///e:/xxx.pdf'>pdf' which is valid.

BUT
 From RFC 2396 I understood it replaces RFC 1738.
<<<
This document defines the generic syntax of URI, including both absolute 
and relative forms, and guidelines for their use; it revises and replaces 
the generic definitions in RFC 1738 and RFC 1808.

 >>>
And in RFC 2396 '<file:/e:/xxx.pdf'>file:/e:/xxx.<file:/e:/xxx.pdf'>pdf' 
seems to be legal as an absolute URI.
<<<
absoluteURI = scheme ":" ( hier_part | opaque_part )
hier_part = ( net_path | abs_path ) [ "?" query ]
net_path = "//" authority [ abs_path ]
abs_path = "/" path_segments >>> ---> so 
'<file:/e:/xxx.pdf'>file:/e:/xxx.<file:/e:/xxx.pdf'>pdf' is legal.
See also 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2003Feb/0035.html>http://lists.w3.o 
rg/Archives/Public/uri/2003Feb/0035.<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri 
/2003Feb/0035.html>html for reference.
Thanks Israel
-----Original Message-----  From:   Al Gilman 
[SMTP:asgilman@iamdigex.net]  Sent:   Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:42 
PM  To:     Israel Viente; uri@w3.org  Subject:        Re: Can someone 
answer my questions , please

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.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.pdf>file:/./foo.<file:/./foo.pdf>pdf" 
or >"<<file:///./foo.pdf>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 Monday, 10 March 2003 11:45:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:05 UTC