- From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 06:43:57 +0200
- To: uri@w3.org
Graham Klyne wrote:
> writing *applications* that access files and/or web resources.
> In these cases, the issue of what a (presumed interactive)
> *browser* does with the URI doesn't arise.
Okay. From my POV reading the local sources of my Web pages
and some additional HTML files (manuals etc.) without a http
server is the only file://-URL application I'm interested in.
> I would argue that converting file:/// to ftp:/// in the
> absence of specific knowledge about the host system is
> broken.
Testing it again I found that John and the Lynx manual have
it right, it's only an issue for file://server, not file:///
I recall other observations, but I can't reproduce it, PEBKAC.
> particular common use-cases you have in which it is important
> to convert a filename into a URI that works in a dominant
> majority of browsers
No. The shell on my OS/2 box "eats" // on the command line,
so I have some scripts to bypass this oddity, but they all
finally start either Netscape or Lynx with an URL extracted
from the context.
Bye, Frank
Received on Saturday, 14 May 2005 04:47:55 UTC