"J.Pietschmann" wrote:
>
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > NOTE: there is no official indication on how the file: URI should be
> > addressed, but all these
> >
> > file:/file
> > file://file
> > file:///file
> >
> > are all valid URIs and should point to the same file (at least, this was
> > my understanding).
>
> Your understanding is wrong. Only the last is a valid URI.
> The RFC for this appears to be
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt
> and some predecessors.
>
> > It could be possible to add
> >
> > file:file
> >
> > to indicate a relative location.
>
> This is wrong too. An URI starting with an URI scheme
> identificator (like file:) is *always* an absolute URI.
> This:
> /file
> is an *relative* URI, despite being an *absolute* path.
>
> > This is normally achieved by avoiding
> > to indicate the protocol (such as in "file"), but since we need a
> > protocol to identify the handler, "file:file" might just be a way to
> > encode relativity in file positioning.
>
> A relative URI is resolved against a base URI, which sepcifies
> the URI scheme. If your base URI is a file URL, *all* relative
> URIs encountered are resolved to files. You can't have a base
> HTTP URI and suddenly have a relative URI point to a file.
>
> Well, hope this helps:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=102027988321347&w=2
Many thanks for the clarification.
Ok, people, I'm sure there is some patching to do now :)
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
