R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> added the comment: Éric: Well....I suppose that depends on how you look at it.
The RFC says that 'file:' does not specify a network protocol, and so "it's utility in network protocols between hosts is limited". So, technically an implementation that decides to handle 'file://<fqdn>' by using ftp isn't *wrong*, but it certainly isn't something that someone writing a 'file:' uri should expect to work. I agree with Senthil, I am -1 on backporting this to earlier versions because of the potential for breaking "working" applications (even though those applications shouldn't really be working :) Antoine: except that the RFC allows FQDNs in 'file:' URIs. So I don't think we can just reject them. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue10063> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
