# Re: 'relative URLs', status

Michael A. Dolan (miked@CERF.NET)
Mon, 22 Aug 1994 10:20:05 -0700

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Michael A. Dolan: "Re: 'relative URLs', status"
- Previous message: William e. Moen: "Announcing GOVERNMENT INFORMATION LOCATOR SERVICE (GILS) Forum"
- Maybe in reply to: Larry Masinter: "'relative URLs', status"
- Next in thread: Michael A. Dolan: "Re: 'relative URLs', status"

    Message-Id: <199408221725.KAA11208@nic.cerf.net>

    Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 10:20:05 -0700

    To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@simplon.ICS.UCI.EDU>

    From: miked@CERF.NET (Michael A. Dolan)

    Subject: Re: 'relative URLs', status

At 06:21 PM 8/20/94 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>I just finished it and will post it in a minute (or less ;-).

Very nice job.

One area that was somewhat vague was what happens when there appears to
be a relative URL, but the scheme is different. For example, if the
base is <http://host/path> and you run into <ftp:path> what should
happen ?

Some options:

A. Each scheme has a "base", and one could do nothing - ie it's a malformed
(relative) URL, (this seems to be what you intended) or

B. Schemes belonging to "Uses-Netloc" can share a base.

A more likely combination might also be base=<ftp://host/path> and href=
<file:path>.

Should this be allowed to work ?

If not, and an HTML document contains URL's of varying schemes, then we
need to think about how in HTML to define all their (separate) bases.

Mike
-----------------------------------------------
Michael A. Dolan <mailto:miked@cerf.net>
TerraByte Technology (619) 445-9070, FAX -8864

- Next message: Michael A. Dolan: "Re: 'relative URLs', status"
- Previous message: William e. Moen: "Announcing GOVERNMENT INFORMATION LOCATOR SERVICE (GILS) Forum"
- Maybe in reply to: Larry Masinter: "'relative URLs', status"
- Next in thread: Michael A. Dolan: "Re: 'relative URLs', status"