4 ms·

So... file://example.com/path/to/file and/or file:////example.com/path/to/file are valid file URIs which might cause an implementation to access the

by phire 9y ago

So... file://example.com/path/to/file and/or file:////example.com/path/to/file are valid file URIs which might cause an implementation to access the remote host example.com via smb/cifs, nfs or ncp protocols. Source: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kerwin-file-scheme-07.html https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kerwin-file-scheme-07.html

sillysaurus3 9y ago
Ah yes, thank you. It really is that simple: 6.6. Applications/Protocols That Use This URI Scheme Name Web browsers: Firefox Note: Firefox has a unique interpretation of RFC 1738 (See: Bugzilla#107540), which affects UNC paths. See Bugzilla#107540 from 16 years ago: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107540 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107540 --- If url format is file:////servername/dir/file.html Mozilla does not navigate to the link. This format works in IE5. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Put url in page - format file:////servername/dir/file.html 2. Try to navigage to link 3. Actual Results: Nothing Expected Results: It should have opened link --- reply from Neil Becker: We have many links on our internal company website using the file:////server/a/b/c/ convention to access files on our network drives. mozilla seems to want file:///// (5 slashes) but IE and even the old netscape accept 4 slashes. It seems that to access a local file, if you write file://D:/qtdocs/classes.html for instance, (2 slashes) mozilla automatically changes it to 3. so... when a link specifies FOUR slashes for a UNC name, it would make sense if mozilla would either expand it to FIVE slashes and check it like that, or accept the 4 slashes. In our company's opinion, this is a bug, not a feature... It's a bug that'll cause us to not use mozilla and instead use IE or another browser than can do the file:////server/a/b/c links. it doesn't seem to be hard to fix - if there's four slashes in the link, change it to 5 and try it. just like you change 2 slashes into 3 for a local hard drive file. cmon! I would really like to see this bugfix in the mozilla 1.0 release. this is NOT a duplicate bug (i checked the others that are claimed to be a dupe and its not). so would someone please fix this????? thanks.

by phire 9y ago

sillysaurus3 9y ago

Ah yes, thank you. It really is that simple: 6.6. Applications/Protocols That Use This URI Scheme Name Web browsers: Firefox Note: Firefox has a unique interpretation of RFC 1738 (See: Bugzilla#107540), which affects UNC paths. See Bugzilla#107540 from 16 years ago: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107540 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107540 --- If url format is file:////servername/dir/file.html Mozilla does not navigate to the link. This format works in IE5. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Put url in page - format file:////servername/dir/file.html 2. Try to navigage to link 3. Actual Results: Nothing Expected Results: It should have opened link --- reply from Neil Becker: We have many links on our internal company website using the file:////server/a/b/c/ convention to access files on our network drives. mozilla seems to want file:///// (5 slashes) but IE and even the old netscape accept 4 slashes. It seems that to access a local file, if you write file://D:/qtdocs/classes.html for instance, (2 slashes) mozilla automatically changes it to 3. so... when a link specifies FOUR slashes for a UNC name, it would make sense if mozilla would either expand it to FIVE slashes and check it like that, or accept the 4 slashes. In our company's opinion, this is a bug, not a feature... It's a bug that'll cause us to not use mozilla and instead use IE or another browser than can do the file:////server/a/b/c links. it doesn't seem to be hard to fix - if there's four slashes in the link, change it to 5 and try it. just like you change 2 slashes into 3 for a local hard drive file. cmon! I would really like to see this bugfix in the mozilla 1.0 release. this is NOT a duplicate bug (i checked the others that are claimed to be a dupe and its not). so would someone please fix this????? thanks.