Re: partial URLs ? (was <p> ... </p>)

Patrick McManus (mcmanus@nysernet.org)
Thu, 21 Dec 1995 09:08:23 -0500 (EST)


From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@nysernet.org>
Message-Id: <199512211408.JAA04178@pat.nyser.net>
Subject: Re: partial URLs ? (was <p> ... </p>)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 09:08:23 -0500 (EST)
Cc: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <199512210402.XAA09098@age.cs.columbia.edu> from "William C. Cheng" at Dec 20, 95 11:02:58 pm

In a previous episode...William C. Cheng said:
-> 
-> It seems to be true that "/../" is not forbidden explicitely.  Now,
-> can anyone give me an example where http://foo/b/../bar.html and
-> http://foo/bar.html should _not_ be interpreted the same way?  Forget
-> about the UNIX-centric business (we all know where DOS gets its "\"
-> and Mac gets its ":") because all these systems basically have
-> hierarchical file systems.  So the real question is whether a "/"
-> separator in an URL implies a level change in a hierarchy.

I don't think the question is whether / is a level change, but whether
.. is considered a level up. I'm pondering an http server on top of a
Relational Database instead of a filesystem and I'd think the URLs
would look somnething like :

	http://hostname:port/schema/relation/key

The '/' is definitely heirarchical in some sense but .. doesn't make
much sense. (The scheme here is just speculation at the momemnt.. I am
still kicking the idea around in my head)..

-Pat
--
Patrick R. McManus	NYSERNet, Inc.		Information Services
http://www.nysernet.org/		Systems and Network Programming
* - You Kill Nostalgia, Xenophobic Fears. It's Now or Neverland. - *