sftp bugs

[Robert Collins]

On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 11:25 +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2005, Jan Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz> wrote:
> > Well, it's not entirely clear about it, but I was refering to the
> > following:
> > 
> > [...] Paths starting with any other character are relative to the user's
> > home or default directory. Note that the characters "/" and ";" are
> > reserved and must be encoded. [...]
> > 
> > So in the end it depends on whether RFC3629 considers // equal to / or
> > not. But I'd rather see // mean absolute path nevertheless as it seems a
> > bit more usable.
> 
> Existing implementations seem very inconsistent.  I think
> sftp://host//etc looks much more like an absolute path than a relative
> path.  



> lftp uses sftp://host/path for absolute, and sftp://host/~/path for
> relative, which also seems reasonable.  I'd prefer this but I don't have
> a strong opinion.

I prefer the lftp one *personally*. But the sftp url draft is AFAICT
stf66 conformant: urls are allowed to do pretty much anything they want,
because they dont have to be predictable, rather they have to round trip
perfectly, *and* allow manipulation based on documents delivered from
the same producer.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051201/4391e5b5/attachment.pgp