[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- To: "'richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk'" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 10:30:09 -0700
"Richard Tobin" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:<8ekar1$1b6v$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>...
> >So according to the RFC, the following are legal:
> >
> >file://localhost/c:/xml/xsl.bat
> >file:///c:/xml/xsl.bat
>
> I had always supposed (until I looked at the RFC) that things like
>
> file:/foo/bar
>
> were legal, since that's what Netscape gives me on Unix when I open a
> file. I can't find any justification for it; is there a generic URI
> rule anywhere that says a URI with no //host part is equivalent to the
> same with an empty string as the host?
The specification of file: is somewhat fuzzy - RFC 1738 has been replaced
with RFC 2396 which does allow the short format you have above (and which is
the one I like the best - it also works with "file:/c:/foo").
Henrik
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************
|
