- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@attlabs.att.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:10:09 -0700
- To: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>, "Graham Klyne" <GK@dial.pipex.com>
- Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, <xml-uri@w3.org>
> >Doesn't that mean that file:///foo is not truly a URI?
From RFC 1738:
A file URL takes the form:
file://<host>/<path>
where <host> is the fully qualified domain name of the system on
which the <path> is accessible, and <path> is a hierarchical
directory path of the form <directory>/<directory>/.../<name>.
but
As a special case, <host> can be the string "localhost" or the empty
string; this is interpreted as `the machine from which the URL is
being interpreted'.
The file URL scheme is unusual in that it does not specify an
Internet protocol or access method for such files; as such, its
utility in network protocols between hosts is limited.
So file:///foo is a special case, and its utility as a communication means
is limited.
> I think some would argue that it's a perfectly reasonable URI and that the
> problem only occurs should you atttempt to dereference it. As with the
> "mailto:joe" example,
Actually, 'mailto:joe' is invalid syntax; RFC 2368 is the official
definition.
A better guide to the RFCs on URIs would be useful. Volunteers
welcome.
Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Thursday, 15 June 2000 15:23:53 UTC