Difference between revisions of "URI/File scheme"
m (added headings, Wikipedia links) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Plan of action for updating the file: URI scheme | + | == Plan of action for updating the file: URI scheme == |
| − | Survey implementations of file: URIs | + | === Survey implementations of file: URIs === |
What do they implement? How do they map file: URIs to various operating system special situations, including handling of character set transformations, inclusion of drive letters, remote mount directories, individual mount points, symbolic links or redirections? | What do they implement? How do they map file: URIs to various operating system special situations, including handling of character set transformations, inclusion of drive letters, remote mount directories, individual mount points, symbolic links or redirections? | ||
What is useful common practice for getting interoperable results when creating file: URIs? | What is useful common practice for getting interoperable results when creating file: URIs? | ||
| − | |||
Based on this, update the Proposed Standard for file: URIs to be consistent with common current practice. | Based on this, update the Proposed Standard for file: URIs to be consistent with common current practice. | ||
| − | |||
| + | — [[User:Lmm|Lmm]] 09:35, 21 Jun 2005 (MDT) | ||
Robert Herriot proposes: | Robert Herriot proposes: | ||
| − | Here is my quick list of browsers that I think we should cover | + | Here is my quick list of browsers that I think we should cover: |
| − | Firefox: Windows 2000/XP, maybe Windows 98, Mac OS X, Linux (I hope one flavor is enough) | + | *[[Wikipedia:en:Mozilla Firefox|Firefox]]: Windows 2000/XP, maybe Windows 98, Mac OS X, Linux (I hope one flavor is enough) |
| − | Netscape: same as above | + | *[[Wikipedia:en:Netscape (web browser)|Netscape]]: same as above |
| − | Mozilla: same as above (there is a new version, even though I thought that Firefox was supposed to replace Mozilla) | + | *[[Wikipedia:en:Mozilla Application Suite|Mozilla]]: same as above (there is a new version, even though I thought that Firefox was supposed to replace Mozilla) |
| − | Opera: same as above | + | *[[Wikipedia:en:Opera (web browser)|Opera]]: same as above |
| − | Windows Explorer: same Windows OSs as above. I assume there is no support for Mac OS X or Linux | + | *[[Wikipedia:en:Windows Explorer|Windows Explorer]]: same Windows OSs as above. I assume there is no support for Mac OS X or Linux |
| − | Safari | + | *[[Wikipedia:en:Safari (web browser)|Safari]]: Mac OS X |
| − | Konqueror: Linux (KDE) | + | *[[Wikipedia:en:Konqueror|Konqueror]]: Linux (KDE) |
| − | Galeon: Linux (Gnome) | + | *[[Wikipedia:en:Galeon|Galeon]]: Linux (Gnome) |
| − | There are a few more | + | There are a few more browsers that I have found, but I think the list above covers the major browsers and perhaps a few minor ones. |
I'm not sure whether we should look at any version other than the latest of each. Though perhaps some older versions with a large installed base should be included. As I went through the above list, I would assume that if the latest version doesn't support much, then the earlier versions would do the same or less. I didn't look at the possible versions of each. I have access or could install most of these browsers. The exceptions are Mac OS X and Gnome. | I'm not sure whether we should look at any version other than the latest of each. Though perhaps some older versions with a large installed base should be included. As I went through the above list, I would assume that if the latest version doesn't support much, then the earlier versions would do the same or less. I didn't look at the possible versions of each. I have access or could install most of these browsers. The exceptions are Mac OS X and Gnome. | ||
Among your questions, you listed drive letters, remote mounts, etc. I would add "file" access to local files with a) no hostname, b) "localhost", c) the actual host name. I would also ask whether "file" accesses remote hosts either via their name or IP address when not remotely mounted. My experience with this last question is that it fails with the browsers that I have tried. | Among your questions, you listed drive letters, remote mounts, etc. I would add "file" access to local files with a) no hostname, b) "localhost", c) the actual host name. I would also ask whether "file" accesses remote hosts either via their name or IP address when not remotely mounted. My experience with this last question is that it fails with the browsers that I have tried. | ||
Revision as of 22:37, 22 June 2005
Plan of action for updating the file: URI scheme
Survey implementations of file: URIs
What do they implement? How do they map file: URIs to various operating system special situations, including handling of character set transformations, inclusion of drive letters, remote mount directories, individual mount points, symbolic links or redirections?
What is useful common practice for getting interoperable results when creating file: URIs?
Based on this, update the Proposed Standard for file: URIs to be consistent with common current practice.
— Lmm 09:35, 21 Jun 2005 (MDT)
Robert Herriot proposes:
Here is my quick list of browsers that I think we should cover:
- Firefox: Windows 2000/XP, maybe Windows 98, Mac OS X, Linux (I hope one flavor is enough)
- Netscape: same as above
- Mozilla: same as above (there is a new version, even though I thought that Firefox was supposed to replace Mozilla)
- Opera: same as above
- Windows Explorer: same Windows OSs as above. I assume there is no support for Mac OS X or Linux
- Safari: Mac OS X
- Konqueror: Linux (KDE)
- Galeon: Linux (Gnome)
There are a few more browsers that I have found, but I think the list above covers the major browsers and perhaps a few minor ones.
I'm not sure whether we should look at any version other than the latest of each. Though perhaps some older versions with a large installed base should be included. As I went through the above list, I would assume that if the latest version doesn't support much, then the earlier versions would do the same or less. I didn't look at the possible versions of each. I have access or could install most of these browsers. The exceptions are Mac OS X and Gnome.
Among your questions, you listed drive letters, remote mounts, etc. I would add "file" access to local files with a) no hostname, b) "localhost", c) the actual host name. I would also ask whether "file" accesses remote hosts either via their name or IP address when not remotely mounted. My experience with this last question is that it fails with the browsers that I have tried.
