W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Status of RFC 1738 -- 'ftp' URI scheme

From: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 12:02:57 -0000
To: URI <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vot3q7r36hl8nm@clerew.man.ac.uk>
On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 14:38:05 -0000, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>  
wrote:

> Charles Lindsey scripsit:
>
>> Put more simply, if you write file://host/blah-blah-blah, then if you
>> write a POSIX open call open("blah-blah-blah", ...) then it ought to
>> work, and you define the format of blah-blah-blah so that it is so. All
>> you ahve to worry about then is where percent-coding is needed, and
>> perhaps whether some relative URI is possible.
>
> So far so good.  The messy part is what the authority means when it is
> neither empty nor "localhost", and clients differ widely in this respect.
>
If the authority identifies a host (e.g. e domain name with a A record, or  
some local name known from /etc/hosts) then the question is whether the  
open command in that host understands "blah-blah-blah". I think any  
standard should forbid anything other than such domain/host names.  
Anything else would be rgearded as a 'local convention' outwith the  
standard - and good luck to you if it happens to work in your environment.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2011 12:03:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:14 UTC