Re: Off/On topic - Brick VS Head. URI(URL/File) eg of previous posts...

At 10:00 AM +0000 9/2/04, Kitchen Pages wrote:
>Content-Description: filename="text1.html"
>Content-Type: text/html
>In relation to the URL of File and its difference to that of Win9x 
>32 - aka URI of file.
>I have noticed several things for a while which seem to work 
>opposite of clearly defined standards and I was wondering why this 
>practice is continued without any note - Ie: a reference to what 
>does where, how it does it?!?, or even the result of a URI on 
>various systems, etc.. (as part of relative-URI as I understood it; 
>which may of been 'incorrect')
>To explain just one very small example, and as perhaps my other 
>posts can not be understood :( from my lack of understanding these 
>ideals fully.
>Step A, created a folder on <../../../../../>C:\ named FOLDER.IE5
>Step B, created a file named 'FILE' in the folder above without an extension
>Test 1, <file:///C/FOLDER.IE5/FILE>file://C/FOLDER.IE5/DATA results 
>in a File Not Found which I think is wrong.
>Test 2, C:\FOLDER.IE5\DATA results in FILE being found, *.

Your 'Test 1' is not the orthodox transcription of your 'Test 2.'

If Test 2 succeeds, then Test 1 SHOULD fail for two defects.

1) the path segment for the drive letter should be /C:/ not /C/. 
Your file: URI is looking for
a non-existent branch in the path tree.

2) you need a host.  Even if you want to minimize typing, you may use 
a zero-length ""
host field as short for 'localhost' the pseudo-host that means 
"here."  But you have to
at least delimit the null 'host' string with yet another '/' character.

Fixing those two transliteration bugs, you come up with

Test 1a, file://localhost/C:/FOLDER.IE5/DATA
Test 1b, file:///C:/FOLDER.IE5/DATA

What happens if you try those?


Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2004 20:35:52 UTC