RE: Warning: using file:// on Windows with curl
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:37:42 +0000
> The benefits of supporting file: are great, though.
No, the benefits of supporting "a resource on the local disk" are great. But TIL that "file:" is not supposed to be a synonym for "a resource on the local disk". The benefits of supporting "file:" in its entire meaning are apparently murkier.
My argument (which, to be clear, I am not very serious about), was that since the "file:" URI scheme is supposed to signify "no particular transfer protocol", then arguably the correct behaviour for a transfer tool might be to have no particular support for it. Because how would one properly implement "nothing in particular"? ;-)
I think the new/original way that Curl interprets "file:" URIs - i.e., "let the OS filesystem figure it out" - is okay. The widespread misconception that "file:" is supposed to mean "a resource on the local disk" is unfortunate, but not Curl's fault. IMO probably the URI scheme should have been named "filesystem:" as opposed to the ambiguous "file:".