On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 14:02, Gabriel Bauman wrote: > Hi there, > > > > Completely trivial note: I wish the "file:///" protocol was named > > > "local:///" instead. But that's just me. :) > > > > Except of course that "file:///" allows you to access files at remote > > sites. > > Perhaps I am missing something. How can one access a file at a remote > location using the file:/// protocol? > > If you are referring to NFS or Samba mount points as would be defined > in /etc/fstab, from the desktop's perspective they are "part of" the > local file system. From the desktop's perspective you are right, but not from a user's perspective. A "local" file should stay in his/her office rather than be whisked across campus. > As far as the "file:///" protocol's implementation is > concerned, it is accessing a local file - a file that is available > under / on the local machine. The implementation does not matter for the user. AS far as the implementation is concerned the the name of the protocoll can be any sequence of characters. If we are worrying whether to call it "file" or "local" we are talking about the user. Andreas > > That's why I'd like to see it named "local:///", but it's an entirely > trivial personal preference. Location dialog boxes drop the "file://" > prefix by default anyway, and app breakage might (probably would) result > from the change. -- Andreas J. Guelzow <aguelzow taliesin ca> Taliesin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part