Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > NOTE: there is no official indication on how the file: URI should be > addressed, but all these > > file:/file > file://file > file:///file > > are all valid URIs and should point to the same file (at least, this was > my understanding).
Your understanding is wrong. Only the last is a valid URI. The RFC for this appears to be http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt and some predecessors. > It could be possible to add > > file:file > > to indicate a relative location. This is wrong too. An URI starting with an URI scheme identificator (like file:) is *always* an absolute URI. This: /file is an *relative* URI, despite being an *absolute* path. > This is normally achieved by avoiding > to indicate the protocol (such as in "file"), but since we need a > protocol to identify the handler, "file:file" might just be a way to > encode relativity in file positioning. A relative URI is resolved against a base URI, which sepcifies the URI scheme. If your base URI is a file URL, *all* relative URIs encountered are resolved to files. You can't have a base HTTP URI and suddenly have a relative URI point to a file. Well, hope this helps: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=102027988321347&w=2 J.Pietschmann --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
