RE: Winnt/Win2k Vuln ?

["David Schwartz" <davids () webmaster com>]

Louis-Eric Simard wrote:

> The major distinction here should one of action-domain constraints;

        Exactly.

> As we are limited by the fact that the shoddy name space is now
> prevalent,
> then context needs to be taken into account. As one types in a
> URL without
> specifying the underlying protocol (http:// or file://), there
> should be no
> ambiguity that the expected protocol is http, just as we do not naturally
> expect file system requests to be carried over the web. The fix is in
> filling-in missing protocol details, within logical usage
> contexts, before
> the request allocator gets a chance to goof it up.

        For the record, I have submitted complaints/requests to the coders of both
IE and Netscape arguing that, for example, 'ftp.microsoft.com' should be
interpreted as 'http://ftp.microsoft.com' and not 'ftp://ftp.microsoft.com'
(and analogously, the brower should not try to figure out what the user
meant (ESP?) but should have a consistent default). I was basically laughed
at by both Microsoft and Netscape.

        I don't think it's unreasonable to have different operating modes where
different defaults take place. For example, when acting as a 'file manager',
file:// can be the default protocol. However, IMO, in ALL cases, the
fully-qualified URL of the site/file you wind up at MUST be shown to the
user. It is a serious error to abbreviate the displayed URL as IE does. I do
not believe Netscape does this.

        DS