sftp url rfc draft

[Robert Collins]

On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 20:55 -0800, Salowey, Joe wrote:
> Hi Robey,
> 
> I see the confusion and I share the confusion.   I looks the URI RFC
> (3586) allows this in the text portion, but the ABNF looks like it may
> disallow a double slash.  In general the two URLs have different meaning
> since the use of the "/" indicates it is part of the URL hierarchical
> structure and the use of the "%2F" indicates it is part of the path
> segment. It seems that the "/" representing the root of the file system
> is hierarchical in nature and would not be escaped (the current draft
> would be wrong then).  I will have to check with a URL expert on this.
> 
> What packages implement the de-facto standard of absolute paths only?
> Is this for SFTP protocol?  If this is the predominant way that the URI
> is in use then it might be a good idea to have the document reflect this
> convention.  

We have a wiki page discussing this:
http://bazaar.canonical.com/SftpUrlFormat

offhand - absolute paths only:
tla/baz, lftp, nautilus (aka gnome).


bzr is not-sure-we-are-still deciding. But the %2f (which is the
appropriate escape to wedge a / through to the backend implementation)
is pretty ugly. Std66 considers all URI paths to be absolute - even the
EBNF terms show this. I think the right thing to do is start a dialog
with the URI working group (whatever that is these days) about adding
'home dir' or 'current dir' as a concept to uris. Seems to me that FTP
and SFTP and file:// would all benefit from the idea of 'users home dir'
being present. My suggested tweak would be:
scheme://authority~segment[/segment]
be used to delineate that.

Cheers,
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/20051215/26362016/attachment.pgp