W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1995

Re: partial URLs ?

From: Chuck Shotton <cshotton@biap.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 21:13:37 -0600
Message-Id: <v02130519acfe7ca3c099@[198.64.246.22]>
To: BearHeart/Bill Weinman <BearHeart@bearnet.com>, www-html@w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 8:36 PM 12/20/95, BearHeart/Bill Weinman wrote:
>   I think you're right that there is nothing about the "../"
>string that's in violation of URL-law. But then, I don't think
>a URL is a very exact science anyway <g>.

The most important thing to remember is that this type of URL syntax only
has meaning to WWW clients. HTTP servers always receive the complete path
so all of this relative URL stuff is client-only. If clients are
interpreting the ".." above the root of the doc tree, you should be very
worried because they know something about your server that the server
didn't tell them.

If you are worried about encoded ".." characters in a URL, then that is
strictly a server side problem and the server author should be spanked for
not checking.

--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Chuck Shotton                               StarNine Technologies, Inc.
chuck@starnine.com                             http://www.starnine.com/
cshotton@biap.com                                  http://www.biap.com/
                      "What? Me? WebSTAR?"
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 1995 19:16:40 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:38 EDT