Per Bothner writes: > Andrew Haley wrote: > > This URL is an absolute URL because its path begins with a "/": > > > > "jar:file:/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/jonas-4.3.3/jonas/output/JONAS_4_3_3/examples/webservices/beans/ws/temp/ejbjars/ws.jar!/META-INF/wsdl/ssbEndpoint.wsdl" > > > > [ An absolute file URL can look like: > > > > absoluteURI = "file" ":" abs_path > > abs_path = "/" path_segments > > > > That is, there is no need for "//". > > I don't see that in any of the specs.
I got it from RFC 2396. Which I might have read wrongly, of course. > Technically, "file:/tmp/foo.html" is not a valid URI, as far as I > can tell. I notice that firefox rewrites it (in the navigation > bar) to "file:///tmp/foo.html". > > Now in practice we may want to allow "file:/tmp/foo.html", but it should > be viewed as an unofficial short-hand for "file:///tmp/foo.html". > > > And indeed, the URL spec in the > > SDK docs says 'If the spec's path component begins with a slash > > character "/" then the path is treated as absolute...' ] > > The *path* is absolute, but the URI isn't. > > This matters when resolving a relative URL against a base URI, such as > he URL of the containing document. > > If we have a base URI "http://bar.com/baz/index.html"; and a reference > "/tmp/foo.html" then the resolved URI is "http://bar.com/tmp/foo.html";. > > > But we parse the spec looking for "//" to determine if a URL is > > absolute, > > A URL is absolute *only* if it has a "scheme". I don't really understand what you're suggesting. Would it be OK to special-case "file" URIs so that "file:/" is rewritten to ""file:///" ? I have no opinions about the syntax of URIs, I only want to make real-world applications work. In this case we have to guess what Java libraries are doing. Andrew. _______________________________________________ Classpath-patches mailing list Classpath-patches@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath-patches
