Christopher R. Hertel
crh at nts.umn.edu
Fri Dec 29 16:43:24 GMT 2000
It has been pointed out that this is a one-character change to any parser
code. One could make a case for using either (I suppose).
Perhaps it is time to consider the process of 'registering' the smb://
syntax and working it through whatever standards body is out there to
consider it. I'm sure we would get an opinion from such a group.
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Michael Sweet wrote:
> > >
> > > The backslash character is almost universally used as an escape
> > > character; that plus the fact that the RFC for URIs specifically
> > > excludes it in URIs makes it an unsuitable choice.
> > Yes, the RFC specifically excludes its use. But RFCs are intended to be
> > guides, not laws, and occasionally the RFCs need to be revised. I think
> > this may be an RFC that could use a footnote.
> This is a legitmate criticism. The RFC does not have to be followed.
> I have to question the motive here, though. If the only dispute were
> whether to use ";" or "\", and ";" is RFC-compliant, and "\" is not,
> why should we use the latter and possibly amend the RFC? Because NT
> users are more familiar with it? That seems a very poor reason for
> such drastic action.
> - Kevin Colby
> kevinc at grainsystems.com
Christopher R. Hertel -)----- University of Minnesota
crh at nts.umn.edu Networking and Telecommunications Services
Ideals are like stars; you will not succeed in touching them
with your hands...you choose them as your guides, and following
them you will reach your destiny. --Carl Schultz
More information about the samba-technical