5 ms·
For something that claims to "grok" URLs, using "://" as part of the logo seems to be misunderstanding how URLs (are supposed to) work. According to RFC3986, U
by efaref 10y ago
For something that claims to "grok" URLs, using "://" as part of the logo seems to be misunderstanding how URLs (are supposed to) work.
According to RFC3986, URIs (the proper name; URLs are a kind of URI) are correctly of the form:
<scheme>:<scheme-specific-part>
For some schemes, the <scheme-specific-part> may contain a <hierarchical-part>, the format for which is:
//<authority>[/<path>] | <path>
So it's only hierarchical URIs with a defined authority that have the (admittedly iconic) "://" in them.
I know most people identity URIs as having that sequence in them, but these are all valid URIs:
mailto:bob@example.com
sip:bob@example.com
tel:+18005550123
file:/path/to/file
I'm not saying I expect everyone to understand these subtleties, but people who claim to grok URLs ought to.
- erikrothoff 10y agoIt's a logo dude...
- davidcollantes 10y agoBut I liked his comment, and explanation! I also learned some. What are we supposed to say, "nice!"? :-)
- raverbashing 10y agoDoes cURL support mailto/sip/tel? No, it supports mainly schemes with a hierarchical-part - even though it works with 'file:' For a logo there's absolutely no problem in using an element that's common and pretty identifiable
- dbalan 10y agoThis might shed some light - Curl Developer on URLs https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hGPFWPPOv-8J:https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/05/11/my-url-isnt-your-url/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hGPFWP...
- kbeckmann 10y agoWhile on the subject, what is the difference between file:/path/to/file and file:///path/to/file ? Usually I only see the latter being used.
- vermilingua 10y agoIn file:///, the file:// part signifies the protocol (think http:// http://) and the / in /path/to/file signifies the root directory (think / in /home/user/) I have never seen file:/ used before, so I can't really comment, but it seems invalid to me (and browsers auto-redirect it to ///).
- jameshart 10y agoAlmost. The file: signifies the protocol. The /// is actually //<machinename>/ with an empty machinename as a shorthand for 'localhost'.
- MoSal 10y agoInteresting. Why is this interpreted as a relative path? cd /etc curl file://resolv.conf
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- throwanem 10y agoWell, it's ill-formed, so what the UA does with it isn't really specified; cURL presumably treats it as a path relative to . because that's what the developer(s) decided that cURL should do. (For comparison, Firefox transforms it into file:///resolv.conf, then tries to find /resolv.conf on localhost and fails.)
- jcater 10y agoIn the article: "I also suggested we’d try to work with :// (colon slash slash) somehow as a symbol, since after all the :// letter sequence is commonly used in all the URL formats that curl supports. And it is sort of a global symbol for URLs when you start to think about it. Made sense to me." They seem to grok it perfectly well, but recognize the modern association people have with :// and urls.
- jrcii 10y agoEvery time I see the word grok I grok in my mouth a little.
- jlgaddis 10y agoWhy? What's wrong with it? It's a real word (i.e. it's in Merriam-Webster).
- notduncansmith 10y agoNot to mention that Tim Berners-Lee himself says that the // was superfluous in retrospect. Regardless, I don't think that paying homage to a widely-known idiosyncrasy of our technological evolution is the worst way to go for a project like curl (a historic project in its own right).