W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2003

resolving relative URIs, RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-03.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:25:38 +0100
To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCOEDIGMAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 1:26 AM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-03.txt
>
> ...
>
> > 19) Section 9.3
> >
> > Language describing the process of relative URI resolution should go.
>
> I actually like it telling me (the reader) this explicitly.
>
> > 23) Section 12
> >
> > Again, an attempt to define relative URI resolution. Don't do that, just
> > refer to RFC2396 and say that URIs in a multistatus response  are
resolved
> > against the request URI.
>
> I do agree that it should not be described more than once in 2518.  A
reference to
> a single place in the same document is fine with me.

OK,

no matter what we do, there should only be *one* place in the spec
describing it.

The choices that I see are

1) we just define that RFC2396-defined relative URI resolution takes place
(also defining what the base URL is in each case),

2) 1) + descriptive text or

3) something different that is compatible to 1), but disallows some specific
cases.

I'd vote for 1) (because that's what RFC2518 says and I haven't seen any
convincing reason to change it yet).

> ..

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 14 March 2003 09:25:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:03 GMT