https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107461
--- Comment #7 from Mike Kaganski <mikekagan...@hotmail.com> ---
(In reply to Egmont Koblinger from comment #6)
Please don't make it look simpler than it is.
First, look at appendix E.3. UNC Strings. It is, of course, not normative, but
it represents the status of the things as they are at the moment of the
standard writing (2017).
And - surprise - by that moment, some few existing Windows users had used file:
schemes to reach their Windows (SMB) shares for some 30 years... and had their
few documents with those usages.
And then, there was a document (which you refer to) named "Standard for
exchanging file: URIs", which gave specifications explicitly on file: URIs on
*UNIX*, without considering if this translates correctly to other systems.
And then, I read that someone discusses if it's OK to bind to that spec (using
gethostname()) or RFC (which uses FQDNs, because that naturally scales better
to other systems), and declares that it's unnecessary to follow the unambiguous
words of RFC on the grounds that it fits his Linux habits more (or, rather,
that for *some specific usages*, that would be simpler).
And then that person starts to question if other deserve to continue using
their established (during decades!) de-facto standards, which were "obsoleted"
by recently-issued RFC of the "Proposed Standard" status, which additionally
mentioned the existence of that practice. Well - of course, the adverse effect
of making billions existing documents using that established practice is
insignificant.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
