Hubert Christiaen wrote:
An URL is composed of
- a protocol part ended with ':' ftp:' 'http:' or 'file:'
This is the URI scheme. It doesn't necessarily name a protocol.
- an address of the server starting with '//' and ending in '/'
if the server is the localmachine, one can put
Hubert Christiaen wrote:
An URL is composed of
- a protocol part ended with ':' ftp:' 'http:' or 'file:'
This is the URI scheme. It doesn't necessarily name a protocol.
- an address of the server starting with '//' and ending in '/'
if the server is the localmachine, one can put
Hubert Christiaen wrote:
> An URL is composed of
> - a protocol part ended with ':' ftp:' 'http:' or 'file:'
This is the URI scheme. It doesn't necessarily name a "protocol".
> - an address of the server starting with '//' and ending in '/'
> if the server is the localmachine, one can put
On maandag 12 januari 2009, Tao Cumplido wrote:
file:///c:/file.txt. (Actually, even that isn't strictly valid; the
c: ought to be c|. But everyone uses and supports c:.)
Ok that kind of works.
But how am I supposed to know that the directory has to be written like
this? There's no mention
On maandag 12 januari 2009, Tao Cumplido wrote:
file:///c:/file.txt. (Actually, even that isn't strictly valid; the
c: ought to be c|. But everyone uses and supports c:.)
Ok that kind of works.
But how am I supposed to know that the directory has to be written like
this? There's no mention
On maandag 12 januari 2009, Tao Cumplido wrote:
> "file:///c:/file.txt". (Actually, even that isn't strictly valid; the
>
> >"c:" ought to be "c|". But everyone uses and supports "c:".)
>
> Ok that kind of works.
> But how am I supposed to know that the directory has to be written like
> this?
