W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > May 2005

Re: Converting filenames to file: URIs

From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 01:01:13 -0400
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050514050113.GD8570@skunk.reutershealth.com>

Graham Klyne scripsit:

> >I am not aware of any browser that actually does that; certainly
> >Lynx (or more accurately libwww) does not, as a quick test will
> >make clear.  What it does do is convert "file://example.com/..."
> >into "ftp://example.com/...", which is entirely plausible.
> 
> I would argue that this, too, is broken as a general conversion:  an FTP 
> server at a given host is capable of serving just a subtree of the file 
> system;  e.g., FTP servers may 'chroot' to a restricted directory for 
> anonymous access.

Indeed, an FTP server in principle exposes a separate filesystem for
each valid username, including "anonymous"; these filesystems may or may
not overlap.  But the same is true for UNC paths, which nobody says are
not appropriate for the file: URI scheme; the first component in the
path identifies a particular share, not necessarily a subdirectory of
the system root.

For that matter, on Plan 9 what you see under / depends on what your process
has attached there.  It's not a requirement that "file://localhost/foo" means
the same thing for everyone even on a single box.

-- 
John Cowan  jcowan@reutershealth.com  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
The present impossibility of giving a scientific explanation is no proof
that there is no scientific explanation. The unexplained is not to be
identified with the unexplainable, and the strange and extraordinary
nature of a fact is not a justification for attributing it to powers
above nature.  --The Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "telepathy" (1913)
Received on Saturday, 14 May 2005 05:01:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:09 UTC