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