Re: URL filename syntax?

[Kai Großjohann]

"Ehud Karni" <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 13:51:04 +0200, address@hidden (Kai 
> =?iso-8859-1?q?Gro=DFjohann?=) wrote:
>> 
>> Is it desirable to use URL-like syntax for remote files?
>
> I think it is very desirable, but ONLY if the URL syntax is saved
> EXACTLY as it is (may be wrapped, but not changed).

Are you talking about my suggestion of changing ftp://address@hidden//foo
to mean the same as ftp://address@hidden/%2Ffoo, instead of
ftp://address@hidden/foo?

It's not quite clear what you want:

(a) ftp://address@hidden/%2Ffoo must have the standard meaning, or
(b) ftp://address@hidden//foo must have the standard meaning (ie, same as
    ftp://address@hidden/foo), or
(c) both.

I agree on (a).  But for (b) I'd say the added convenience outweighs
the slight incompatibility with the standard.

(And Tramp is incompatible with the standard anyway, since it mostly
supports URL schemes like ssh, scp, su, smb, and rsync, which are not
standardized.)
-- 
file-error; Data: (Opening input file no such file or directory ~/.signature)