Dan Harkless wrote:
>
> Well, silly or not, the concept is already there, so I don't think it makes
> sense to remove the ability to access RFC-valid URLs in order to imitate
> Netscape or Internet Explorer.
I guess that depends on whether you think it's more important to
do the most useful thing, and what people expect; or do what the
RFC says, despite the fact that nobody else has actually implemented
that.
I guess you know what my opinion is: de facto standards are the
only ones that matter.
> > The correct approach would be to try "CWD url/dir/path/" (the correct
> > meaning) and if this does not work, try "CWD /url/dir/path/".
>
> I agree this would seem to be the best approach. I'll add this to the TODO.
That works too, I suppose.
(But if you're going to slavishly follow the RFC, you have to do one CWD
for each directory component, or it won't work on, e.g., VMS and TWENEX
file servers.)
--
Jamie Zawinski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jwz.org/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dnalounge.com/
