- From: Jason Dusek <jason.dusek@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 19:56:10 +0000
- To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAO3NbwNaNpahYWy6evy3R=1htBBueEuKQA__+Mz=mzJqK4-m7A@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 at 18:08 Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote: > Hi, > > I'll reply to the part I can talk to. > > On 10/06/2016 2:38 PM, "Jason Dusek" <jason.dusek@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > In the draft RFC, some allowance is made for UNC paths, which result in > runs of slashes like this file://///... UNC provides a notion of a share > and perhaps we could treat home, dot and dot dot as shares? > Using file://..././/.., file://.../~//..., &c. > > > > I don't see how to make this work. The concept of a 'share' is unique to > MS-DTYP. All we have in a file URI is a path. > > And, again, one has to take care with names like '.' and '..' since those > are destroyed by any RFC 3986-compliant general purpose URL library. > > > Another possibility is to make use of a reserved character, the @, as a > mysterium bonum. We imagine a virtual directory at file:///@ wherein: > > > > file:///@/. is a link to the present directory as defined by the end > user’s context, > > file:///@/.. is the directory above this directory, > > file:///@/~ is the end user’s home directory. > > > > To access a file or directory @ at the system root, one can > use file:///%40. Is this something that a conforming implementation could > provide under the present draft? > > > > That's syntactically legal. I also think there's nothing in the current > draft that forbids it, because I realise on a fresh reading that the part > of the draft that used to explain how the 'path' of a URI relates to the > local file system has vanished. I'm going to have to re-add it. It will > describe what everyone currently does and expects: the URI path represents > an absolute file path. > > Since '@' is explicitly allowed in the `pchar` rule used in path segments, > I think "/@/..." would not be special-handled by most implementations; so > you're going to have interoperability issues trying to do this. > Well, this clarifies some things. Magic mounts are, I think, within an implementer's rights; and here, percent encoding does provide a way to escape the special interpretation. It is strange to me that the draft neither provides for home and the present directory semantics, nor clearly speaks to the issue (in a section titled "Special Paths in UNIX and File URLs" or something similar). Perhaps it would inspire future work in this area. > > Kind Regards, > > Jason Dusek > > > > Cheers, > Matty > Kind Regards, Jason Dusek
Received on Saturday, 11 June 2016 19:56:49 UTC