[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: address@hidden: browse-url-of-dired-file vs. .gz]

From: Jason Rumney
Subject: Re: address@hidden: browse-url-of-dired-file vs. .gz]
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:46:42 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20060516)

Lennart Borgman wrote:
Jason Rumney wrote:
Both are equally valid URLs for a local file.
Thanks for that info. That clears my confusion a bit. But where is this info? I did a search at w3c.org but did not find it.

People used to discuss this regularly in the early days of web browsers, when bugs in browser implementations meant you needed to be familiar with all the possibilities (some browsers used to use ftp if there were two or more slashes after file:).


However, I just reviewed the relevant RFCs, and there is no mention of a server-less version of the file: URL scheme, so file:/// does appear be more correct than file:/, at least in theory.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]