# Re: Outstanding Issues for Relative URL draft

Martijn Koster (m.koster@nexor.co.uk)
Fri, 16 Sep 1994 15:02:33 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Michael Mealling: "Re: don't send mail about <URL:...> prefix here"
- Previous message: Roy T. Fielding: "Outstanding Issues for Relative URL draft"
- In reply to: Roy T. Fielding: "Outstanding Issues for Relative URL draft"

    Message-Id: <9409161403.AA05147@mocha.bunyip.com>

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

    Subject: Re: Outstanding Issues for Relative URL draft

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 16 Sep 1994 03:33:57 PDT."             <9409160334.aa22711@paris.ics.uci.edu>

    Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 15:02:33 +0100

    From: Martijn Koster <m.koster@nexor.co.uk>

> ISSUE 2. Should relative URLs which start with "scheme:" ALWAYS be considered
> absolute, even when the "scheme:" is the same as the Base URL?
>
> PRO: Simplifies the resolution algorithm (slightly).
> Prevents clueless authors from using a "scheme:" even when
> they don't need to.

And keeps things simpler and clearer.

> CON: Breaks with existing practice.

I don't think this is widespread in use, widely supported, or even
documented anywhere.

> The ability to specify a "scheme:" is only a side-effect of the
> parsing/resolution algorithm -- this change would just cause
> abnormal URLs to fail.
>
> STATUS: The current spec contains a paragraph which warns against this
> kind of abnormal relative URL. The editor considers this
> sufficient. Members who disagree should post to the list --
> it will be changed if there is a clear consensus for doing so.

I disagree, and move for this to be explicitly disallowed.

> ISSUE 3. Should the appendix on the use of <BASE ...> in HTML be
> removed from the Relative URL spec?
>
> [PRO/CON deleted]
>
> STATUS: The appendix will remain in the spec.

Sounds fair.

> ISSUE 4. It seems possible to define relative URLs independently of the
> scheme to which they are relative [...]

> CON: It won't work.

Quite.
> STATUS: This change will not be made unless the URL spec is changed to
> allow scheme-independent parsing.

Agreed.

> ISSUE 5. In section 2.2, the BNF for relativeURL makes this relative URL
> impossible: ... foo.html
>
> PRO: This is a bug in the BNF and should be fixed.
>
> STATUS: It will be fixed (once I figure out how).
> Suggestions are welcome

If you decide to scrap the scheme in ISSUE 2, can the BNF be adapted
to enforce that?

-- Martijn
__________
Internet: m.koster@nexor.co.uk
X-400: C=GB; A= ; P=Nexor; O=Nexor; S=koster; I=M
X-500: c=GB@o=NEXOR Ltd@cn=Martijn Koster
WWW: http://web.nexor.co.uk/mak/mak.html

- Next message: Michael Mealling: "Re: don't send mail about <URL:...> prefix here"
- Previous message: Roy T. Fielding: "Outstanding Issues for Relative URL draft"
- In reply to: Roy T. Fielding: "Outstanding Issues for Relative URL draft"