W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1998

Re: ISSUE: Protection space

From: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 14:03:45 -0400
Message-Id: <35CB4181.5EA9@bell-labs.com>
To: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/320
Paul Leach wrote:
> [...]
> > [DMK]
> > Since all URLs on a server are implicitly
> > descended from "/"
> > (no?), wouldn't it be easier just to say that relative URLs
> > are taken to
> > be relative to "/"?
> The list allows absolute URIs with host names other than that of the server
> sending the "domain" directive.

Are we talking about two different things?  I'm not concerned with
absolute URLs.  For them the protected set of URLs is obvious.

Here's the wording at issue (Sect. 3.2.1):
If a URI is relative, it is relative to [the] canonical root URL of the
server being accessed.

My notion of a relative URL is one that does not begin with '/'.  For
such a URL, wouldn't it make sense to give them an implicit '/' prefix?

Dave Kristol
Received on Friday, 7 August 1998 11:05:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:23 UTC