RE: [xsl] Windows URLs

["Passin, Tom" <tpassin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> This doesn't actually address the UNC question, but I'm pretty sure
that
> conclusion when we last discussed it on the list was that the correct
form
> (i.e. the one most likely to work) was file:////server/file/name -
yes,
> four
> slashes.

This might seem logical, but it didn't work on Firefox when I tried it.
Putting in *five* forward slashes did!  My guess is that the thinking
was to start at the local host, which would be the three slashes, then
put in two more to let that host find the target via UNC.

Of course, there is no particular reason why a processor should be
expected to find a UNC address at all, even though it can be handy on
occasion.  In any event, it doesn't look like there will be uniformity
of syntax for file: urls any time soon, even without handling of UNC
addresses.


> Michael Kay
> http://www.saxonica.com/
>
> P.S. Does anyone think I ought to allow windows path names in places
where
> the spec requires a URI? I'm disinclined to do it, but it does give
people
> a
> problem moving to a product that enforces the rules strictly from one
that
> doesn't.

I've changed my mind about this many times.  Today, I think it better
not to do it, unless you plan to treat *nix file names the same way,
too, which seems unlikely.

Cheers,

Tom P