> However, I just reviewed the relevant RFCs, and there
is no mention of
> a server-less version of the file: URL scheme, so
file:/// does appear
> be more correct than file:/, at least in theory.
Page 21 of RFC 3986 states that
For example, the
"file" URI
scheme is defined so that no authority, an empty host,
and
"localhost" all mean the end-user's machine,
...
"No authority" means that the
"//host" part of the URI is omitted
entirely, whereas "an empty host" means that the
"//" has no text between
it and the following "/" that begins the path
(which, with an authority
present, even if it's an empty host, must begin with a
slash). So
file:/// and file:/ and file://localhost/ all mean exactly
the same thing,
whether or not they are followed by anything (which must be
an absolute
file name without its leading /). My apologies for
reporting the "bug"
that did not in fact exist, but perhaps file:/// should be
used anyway if
it's more compatible?
Davis
--
This product is sold by volume, not by mass. If it appears
too dense or
too sparse, it is because mass-energy conversion has
occurred during
shipping.
_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel gnu.org
htt
p://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
|
.