Message-Id: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 21:13:37 -0600 To: BearHeart/Bill Weinman <BearHeart@bearnet.com>, email@example.com, From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Chuck Shotton) Subject: Re: partial URLs ? 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. email@example.com http://www.starnine.com/ firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.biap.com/ "What? Me? WebSTAR?"