# Re: Using "scheme:" with relative URLs

Michael A. Dolan (miked@CERF.NET)
Mon, 22 Aug 1994 19:14:07 -0700

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Roy T. Fielding: "Using "scheme:" with relative URLs"
- Previous message: Suresh Krishnajois: "protocol keyword for telephone-accessible urls"
- Maybe in reply to: Roy T. Fielding: "Using "scheme:" with relative URLs"
- Next in thread: Paul Francis: "Re: Using "scheme:" with relative URLs"

    Message-Id: <199408230223.TAA15918@nic.cerf.net>

    Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 19:14:07 -0700

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

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

    Subject: Re: Using "scheme:" with relative URLs

At 05:11 PM 8/22/94 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>For the first draft, I wanted to stick as close as possible to proven
>implementations (aside from introducing the specific requirements of
>Internet URLs). For the next draft, should the use of scheme: in front
>of relative URLs be removed? Or, should they be allowed but with a note
>added to the spec which describes the pitfalls?

I'm not particularly in favor of the cross-scheme relative URL's. I just
raised the issue since it was slightly unclear (to me) what you had intended,
and there are some pretty unusual uses of relative URL's that Mosaic seems
to tolerate.

Maybe a simple comment in your spec that explicitly says it's illegal
would clarify things ?

As for dis-allowing "http:path" as a legal URL (when the base is "http:..."),
maybe Mr. Connolly can comment ? It is certainly conceivable that an HTML
syntax could be enhanced to support a BASE per scheme. If so, you'd
eventually need it. Also, this form is currently in use, most notably at
<http://www.hp.com>. Maybe the author(s) can shed some light on the
need for this ?

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

- Next message: Roy T. Fielding: "Using "scheme:" with relative URLs"
- Previous message: Suresh Krishnajois: "protocol keyword for telephone-accessible urls"
- Maybe in reply to: Roy T. Fielding: "Using "scheme:" with relative URLs"
- Next in thread: Paul Francis: "Re: Using "scheme:" with relative URLs"