On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Andrew Neil Ramage wrote:
This is a Windows program and people want to use Unix paths. So the 'unix://' in front of the path is a protocol, not a path.
'This is a Windows program and people want to use Unix paths' and 'unix://xxx' is not a Unix path. So I don't see how it solves the problem any better than 'z:/xxx'.
Like when you are browsing the internet using http, and wamt to download from an FTP server, you preface the address with ftp://
But the same people who object to using 'z:/' would object to using 'file://'. So they would objcet to having to use 'unix://' or 'z:/' just the same.
I can understand people wanting to use standard plain Unix paths, it makes sense from an 'aesthetic' and integration point of vue. But IMHO having to use 'z:/' is really a minor issue as far as people are concerned. The one situation it can get more tricky or cumbersome is when you want Unix scripts to interoperate with Windows applications. But even in this situation, I suspect that most cases can be solved by having wrapper scripts that convert the paths between Windows and Unix forms using winepath.exe.
-- Francois Gouget [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fgouget.free.fr/ "Only wimps use tape backup: _real_ men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;)" -- Linus Torvalds
