[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev RFC959 non-compliance in Lynx hangs the client
From: |
David Woolley |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev RFC959 non-compliance in Lynx hangs the client |
Date: |
Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:38:52 +0100 (BST) |
> > Lynx will be doing an RETR here because it doesn't know that the
> > initial, forced, / is a directory. The CWD is actually error
> > recovery in Lynx.
>
> Well it should. That is, if you're reading the RFCs.
I've now re-read RFC 1738 and the CWD is definitely error recovery.
In fact, it looks like the common convention of interpreting URLs with
a trailing / as directories is questionable - it depends on how liberally
you interpret:
3.2.3. FTP Typecode is Optional
The entire ;type=<typecode> part of a FTP URL is optional. If it is
omitted, the client program interpreting the URL must guess the
appropriate mode to use. In general, the data content type of a file
can only be guessed from the name, e.g., from the suffix of the name;
the appropriate type code to be used for transfer of the file can
then be deduced from the data content of the file.
Even this doesn't require a retry if the initial type code appears wrong.
As far as I can tell, the only sure way of getting a directory listing
of the root directory on Unix is:
ftp://host.domain/%2F;type=d
although you would need to use:
ftp://host.domain/%2F/;type=d
to be sure of safely using relative URLs, and you would need the trailing
/ to ensure that any type=d heuristic was triggered.
Note that using %2F is well defined for a Unix server; I may have suggested
otherwise before.
I'm not happy with my interpretation of the 2.7.2 Lynx source with respect
to persistent connections after a type=d operation on default (i.e. Unix)
servers.
- Re: lynx-dev RFC959 non-compliance in Lynx hangs the client, (continued)
- Re: lynx-dev RFC959 non-compliance in Lynx hangs the client, David Woolley, 1999/09/09
- Re: lynx-dev RFC959 non-compliance in Lynx hangs the client, David Woolley, 1999/09/09
- Re: lynx-dev RFC959 non-compliance in Lynx hangs the client, Gregory A Lundberg, 1999/09/09
- Re: lynx-dev RFC959 non-compliance in Lynx hangs the client, Klaus Weide, 1999/09/10
- Re: lynx-dev RFC959 non-compliance in Lynx hangs the client, Gregory A Lundberg, 1999/09/10
- Re: lynx-dev RFC959 non-compliance in Lynx hangs the client, Klaus Weide, 1999/09/11
- Re: lynx-dev RFC959 non-compliance in Lynx hangs the client,
David Woolley <=
- Re: lynx-dev RFC959 non-compliance in Lynx hangs the client, Klaus Weide, 1999/09/10
2.8.3dev.8 patch 3 (was: lynx-dev RFC959 non-compliance), Klaus Weide, 1999/09/07
Re: 2.8.3dev.8 patch 3 (was: lynx-dev RFC959 non-compliance), Klaus Weide, 1999/09/07
Re: 2.8.3dev.8 patch 3 (was: lynx-dev RFC959 non-compliance), Gregory A Lundberg, 1999/09/08
Re: 2.8.3dev.8 patch 3 (was: lynx-dev RFC959 non-compliance), Klaus Weide, 1999/09/10