BTW, AFAICT on both Mac and Linux, "chrome-cmd file.html" opens
file:///path/to/cwd/file.html.  Mac works for opening relative
"http:/file.html".  Since http: is not a valid filename for Windows,
I'd say making them all consistent would make sense.

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Scott Hess <sh...@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Peter Kasting <pkast...@google.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Scott Hess <sh...@google.com> wrote:
>>> [BTW, don't take my argument as support for allowing relative paths on
>>> the command-line.  It's such a low-volume use-case that I'd be
>>> perfectly fine requiring explicit fully-qualified URLs and be done
>>> with it.
>>
>> :( This lack-of-feature has bitten me numerous times in the past few months.
>>  I support the Firefox way.
>
> Your point needs support from non-awesome users.  If you try to open a
> relative path and it doesn't work, you go "Oh, right, relative path".
> The bone of contention in the thread is what should be done when you
> didn't mean to open a relative path.  If all the Chromium developers
> all around the world needed this feature, that would still be a small
> number of people, and if they really needed it, enabling it only for
> non-release builds would probably cover most of those cases.
>
> [I'm just saying.  As a Mac user, I must obey the party line that even
> though we run on the only real Unix, there is no command-line.]
>
> -scott
>
-- 
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com 
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: 
    http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev

Reply via email to