Re: file://localhost => local: ?

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Jan 94-present
• Next message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Reliable links [Was: Stab in the dark ] "
• Previous message: Martijn Koster: "Re: X500 gateway sought for Solaris. "

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 19:31:25 --100
Message-id: <9403211820.AA12816@ulua.hal.com>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: connolly@hal.com
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: file://localhost => local: ? 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 1000

In message <94Mar21.101133pst.2732@golden.parc.xerox.com>, Larry Masinter write
s:
..
>Another more serious problem is that many HTML documents on the net
>still use 'file:' instead of 'ftp:'. To get this to work with the
>proxy gateway, I set things up so that 
..
>Personally, I'd like to see a totally different URL constructed to
>mean 'file on the client's workstation' for use with lynx, Mosaic,
>etc. to get rid of the ambiguity. I propose using:
>
>	local:<local-host-pathname>
>
>What do you think?

I suggest the name "local-file" with semantics as defined by MIME.

I suggest the name "anon-ftp" be supported as well.

I think the semantics of URLs and MIME external bodies should be
the same, and in this vein, it is important that they share
namespaces. i.e. it would be a Bad Thing if a URL scheme and a MIME
access type had the same spelling but different meanings. For the same
reasons, I think it's a Bad Thing for the same mechanism to have
different names under MIME and WWW.

Dan