From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: URL filename syntax? Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:51:58 +0900 Organization: The XEmacs Project Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <874r4w7c1d.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <841y051emv.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de> <84y92br2ks.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de> <200304152120.h3FLK8G1008335@beta.mvs.co.il> <848yu9p40z.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1050634383 13450 80.91.224.249 (18 Apr 2003 02:53:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 02:53:03 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 18 04:53:02 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 196Lzg-0003UC-00 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 04:52:52 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 196M2n-0005Vg-00 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 04:56:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 196M0L-0004y6-02 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 22:53:33 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 196M00-0004kd-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 22:53:12 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 196Lzt-0004Sg-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 22:53:05 -0400 Original-Received: from tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.98.109]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 196LzZ-0003w7-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 22:52:45 -0400 Original-Received: from steve by tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 196Lyo-0000b0-00 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:51:58 +0900 Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <848yu9p40z.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de> (kai.grossjohann@gmx.net's message of "Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:55:24 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090016 (Oort Gnus v0.16) XEmacs/21.5 (cabbage) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:13272 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:13272 >>>>> "Kai" =3D=3D Kai Gro=DFjohann 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. --=20 Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac= .jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JA= PAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.