# Re: 'relative URLs', status

Michael A. Dolan (miked@CERF.NET)
Wed, 24 Aug 1994 10:05:57 -0700

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Fisher Mark: "Re: Z39.50 and URLs"
- Previous message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: 'relative URLs', status"
- Maybe in reply to: Larry Masinter: "'relative URLs', status"
- Next in thread: Michael A. Dolan: "Re: 'relative URLs', status"

    Message-Id: <199408241714.KAA15782@nic.cerf.net>

    Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 10:05:57 -0700

    To: timbl@www0.cern.ch

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

    Subject: Re: 'relative URLs', status

At 04:39 PM 8/24/94 +0100, timbl@www0.cern.ch wrote:
>> 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 ?
>
>If there is a scheme: then it is not a relative URL.
>Relative URLs can't have schemes. Period.
>Relative URLs are formed by stripping off continguous things in common
>starting at the left -- more or less

I would personally agree, but then the issue becomes: Is the spec "what
we would all like someday", or "what is currently in practice" ?

There is a lot of value in documenting existing practice, even if it not
what we wish it was. This is particularly true given the wide distribution
of existing implementations.

Since current implementations seem to handle "http:relativeURL", then it
seems that it should be addressed somewhere. How about a document section
for "non-compliant, but still tolerable syntax" (or "The Way it Was", or...) ?

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

- Next message: Fisher Mark: "Re: Z39.50 and URLs"
- Previous message: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: 'relative URLs', status"
- Maybe in reply to: Larry Masinter: "'relative URLs', status"
- Next in thread: Michael A. Dolan: "Re: 'relative URLs', status"