Re: partial URLs ?

Walter Ian Kaye (boo@best.com)
Wed, 20 Dec 1995 20:40:56 -0800


Message-Id: <v02120d02acfe92cc7f5d@[205.149.180.135]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 20:40:56 -0800
To: www-html@w3.org, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
From: boo@best.com (Walter Ian Kaye)
Subject: Re: partial URLs ?

At 8:36p 12/20/95, BearHeart/Bill Weinman wrote:

>   Yes, "/../" is a unixism, but the path part of a URL is inherently
>platform specific. I see URLs with "\" in them for DOS-type hosts, and
>"\..\" is just as much of a problem--maybe more because of the lack
>of permissions-bits in most DOSish OSs. The code I've seen that 403s
>these things checks for the ".." and that seems to be a pretty
>universal string for "go up a level in the file system", or do you
>know of an OS with more than 3 servers on the net that doesn't work
>that way?


While Unix uses ../ and DOS uses ..\ and MacOS uses :: natively to "go up a
level in the file system", it is quite clear (at least to me) that native
notations have no place in a valid URL. As was quoted in another message,
only ../ is valid for denoting hierarchy in a URL. I wish browsers were
stricter about this... ::sigh::

-Walter

__________________________________________________________________________
    Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com>       | Excel | FoxPro | AppleScript |
          Mountain View, CA              |--------- programmer ---------|
 http://www.natural-innovations.com/     |   Macintosh    |   Windows   |