Lists Home |
Date Index |
> There's also the general principle that file: URIs generally suck.
> Aside from the obvious portability problems, it seems like the syntax
> and semantics are different for every browser and class library out
> there, e.g. the orginally-netscape weirdness of file:|// or whatever
> with the pipe character in it. Every time I've tried to use them
> they've given me severe grief. I kind of suspect it's bogus to try to
> pretend a filename is a URI -Tim
And given that many, if not all, fileservers can make use of webdav it'd be just
as easy to use http URLs. Or should the application insist on handling it as a
'local' resource, one could use something like
http://127.0.0.1/usr/local/share/whatever. The use of file: URIs are fraught
with so many hassles regarding their proper construction and security that it's
darned tough to justify using them.