Re: Not OK computer:/// [was Re: Should Desktop = Home?]

On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 15:02, Gabriel Bauman wrote:
> Hi there,
> > > Completely trivial note: I wish the "file:///" protocol was named
> > > "local:///" instead. But that's just me. :)
> > 
> > Except of course that "file:///" allows you to access files at remote
> > sites.
> Perhaps I am missing something. How can one access a file at a remote
> location using the file:/// protocol? 
> If you are referring to NFS or Samba mount points as would be defined
> in /etc/fstab, from the desktop's perspective they are "part of" the
> local file system. As far as the "file:///" protocol's implementation is
> concerned, it is accessing a local file - a file that is available
> under / on the local machine.
> That's why I'd like to see it named "local:///", but it's an entirely
> trivial personal preference. Location dialog boxes drop the "file://"
> prefix by default anyway, and app breakage might (probably would) result
> from the change.

See section 3.10 of RFC 1738.  Host information is perfectly valid on a
file URI.  But the file URI scheme doesn't specify a protocol for remote
files, which makes it pretty close to useless.  From my reading, though,
we'd be perfectly within our rights to map remote file URIs to something
like sftp URIs.  Not that I'd advocate it.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]