sftp bugs

[John A Meinel]

Robert Collins wrote:
> 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.

What if we do this:
sftp://host//absolute/path
and
sftp://host/~/relative/path

and then we fight over what this means:
sftp://host/path

I think the first 2 are obvious what you mean. The last one is open to
interpretation, so we provide the first to so that we can always be sure
to have an exact specification.

Rob, can you explain a little bit more what you mean by:
"have to round trip perfectly, *and* allow manipulation"

And how you feel the ~ would prevent that?

John
=:->

> 
> Rob
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051130/ae91a2a1/attachment.pgp