Re: URL filename syntax?

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>]

>>>>> "Kai" == Kai Großjohann <kai.grossjohann@gmx.net> writes:

    Kai> Okay.  It seems that ftp://user@host//foo is an illegal URL,
    Kai> so I can assign any meaning to it that I like.

It's not.  (If you're referring to my statement on another channel, it
was incorrect, and I tried to admit that; if it was unclear, my
apologies.)

Empty components in the url-path are legal in general (non-opaque)
schemes (such as FTP, cf RFC 2396 Appendix A).  In particular, they're
legal in FTP URLs as well as defined in RFC 1738, Sec. 3.2.2.

    Kai> Hence, I'll define it to mean the same thing as
    Kai> ftp://user@host/%2Ffoo.

    Kai> Do you object?

Do you intend to ensure that that definition is consistent throughout
all the possible ways of exporting URLs from Emacs to other apps?
(Eg, fix shell-mode and comint to recognize and convert Tramp URLs
being passed to wget and the X selection mechanism to recognize and
convert "Tramp URLs" in case of pasting to Mozilla!)

I consider that property very desirable.  Exactly those users who
don't grok %2F are going to be the ones who _need_ those conversions.
I think that that is what Ehud wants, too.

Kai said:

    >>> (And Tramp is incompatible with the standard anyway, since it
    >>> mostly supports URL schemes like ssh, scp, su, smb, and rsync,
    >>> which are not standardized.)

Ehud replied:

    >> If there is no standard - there is no incompatibility.

RFC 2396 and RFC 2718 should be considered carefully.  Especially
since one way to prevent schemes from being defined incompatibly later
is to register them.


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.