3 ms·
It's interesting that the example in the proposal uses the file: protocol rather than http. Was that a mistake? Today a browser would handle such a tag by looki
by sowbug 8y ago
It's interesting that the example in the proposal uses the file: protocol rather than http. Was that a mistake? Today a browser would handle such a tag by looking for a local file, rather than "attempt[ing] to pull over the network."
- matthewbadeau 8y agoIt was probably not a mistake. It was to separate Hypertext from other files. The file: protocol still works in the a browser with a hostname as well. IE: file:///10.1.1.10/files/example.xlsx
- Jaruzel 8y agoAlthough it will use the underlying file sharing stack such as NFS or SMB, and not HTTP.
- sowbug 8y agoI can't believe I didn't know that until now! I've personally used file: only to test local copies of static files/sites, and haven't had a need beyond that. I wonder how the browser distinguishes between a file residing on a host addressable at 10.1.1.10, and the local path /10.1.1.10/files/example.xlsx. Maybe it tries one and then the other if the first doesn't work.
- ttmb 8y agoThey would be different URIs. file://10.1.1.10/files/example.xlsx - remote vs file:///10.1.1.10/files/example.xlsx - local