Re: address@hidden: browse-url-of-dired-file vs. .gz]

[Jason Rumney]

Lennart Borgman wrote:
> Jason Rumney wrote:
> > Both are equally valid URLs for a local file.
> Thanks for that info. That clears my confusion a bit. But where is 
> this info? I did a search at w3c.org but did not find it.

People used to discuss this regularly in the early days of web browsers, 
when bugs in browser implementations meant you needed to be familiar 
with all the possibilities (some browsers used to use ftp if there were 
two or more slashes after file:).

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.infosystems.www.providers/browse_thread/thread/d6642ca04fc461c4/dcbe395dc34c2c92?lnk=st&q=file+url+local&rnum=23&hl=en#dcbe395dc34c2c92

However, I just reviewed the relevant  RFCs, and there is no mention of 
a server-less version of the file: URL scheme, so file:/// does appear 
be more correct than file:/, at least in theory.