GNU bug report logs - #4951
23.1.50; browse-url-default-windows-browser bug + patch

Previous Next

Full log

Message #20 received at 4951 <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):

From: Jason Rumney <jasonr <at> f2s.com>
To: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman <at> gmail.com>,
        4951 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#4951: 23.1.50; browse-url-default-windows-browser bug + patch
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:54:21 +0800

Lennart Borgman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Stefan Monnier
> <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>   
>>> browse-url-default-windows-browser does not work any longer.  I am
>>> unsure when it stopped working, but on at least Windows XP the
>>> attached patch seems necessary.  Could we please apply this as soon as
>>> possible so it will get tested?
>>>       
>> Could you explain why it's necessary?  I mean I understand you say that
>> the current doesn't work, but I'd like to understand why it doesn't work.
>>     
>
> No, I do not understand why it is necessary ... ;-)
>
> There are two changes:
>
> 1) file: => file:///
>
> This was discussed some time ago (a yr or two?) and it looks like this
> is a more correct syntax for the file URL.
>   

Is it actually needed, or is this purely an aesthetic thing? The RFCs 
are not clear whether either is more correct, as the file: scheme is not 
explicitly defined, and not all URL schemes require a server to be 
specified before the file path. As far as I can tell, either option is 
accepted by Windows itself, but if the association passes the URL intact 
rather than after converting to a file argument by Windows, then there 
may be applications that accept one but not the other.

IIRC the main reason for using file: rather than file:/// was that if 
the same code is used on all platforms, then the former works, while the 
latter does not (too many / when combined with posix paths).  But as 
this is now in a (windows-nt msdos cygwin) conditional, that is not 
really important, and we should use what works.


> 2) Changing the verb to w32-shell-execute (ShellExecute) from "open"
> to nil is for some reason I do not know necessary. The answer to why
> hides deep within the w32 registry and maybe some knowledgeable
> persons at MS... It might be a mismatch of some kind, I don't know. I
> believe the verbs are not that well thought out and used all the time.
> Probably the registry entry has taken over from the program code
> (which give users and other programs better possibilities).
>   

It is likely a misconfiguration on your system. "open" is the standard 
verb for opening files, and should avoid the security problems 
associated with using nil for executable file types where the system's 
default action is something other than "open".

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.