Re: [jidanni@jidanni.org: browse-url-of-dired-file vs. .gz]

["Stuart D. Herring" <herring@lanl.gov>]

> 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.