[OT] file:// vs. file:///

Klaus Rennecke wrote:

> Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> And please, for the last time, it's file://, not file:/// -- two
>> slashes, not three, if you want to be consistent with the others.
>> [...]
>
>
>
> I beg to differ. See Section 3.10 in
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1738.html where the file:/// URL is the
> special case with host name omitted because it is localhost.
>
> So it's file:/// and *not* file://.

That paragraph says:

   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'.

Note, "can be", not "must be". So to be consistent, it's "http:// and
file://", not "http:// and file:///". because the second form implies a
certain value for the scheme-specific data, and the first doesn't.

In fact, when we talk just about the RA-specific URL scheme, we should
be using only "http:", "svn:" and "file:" -- the double slashes aren't
part of the scheme, according to that RFC.

-- Brane

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jul 6 00:09:46 2004