- From: by way of Martin Duerst <Israel_Viente@il.vio.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:50:14 -0500
- 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