W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > May 2006

Re: Dot Dot Slash notation checked by Link Checker

From: Jeffrey Chandler <jeffrey.chandler@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 10:48:43 -0400
Message-ID: <fb7605fb0605010748k7929b539y8571fd7aa597ead7@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Philip Semanchuk" <philip@semanchuk.com>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org


You described my situation exactly.  The webpage is up one directory,
but the img directory is back down one directory.  So the website is
listed at http://myhost.com/dir1/index.html, but the images for the
site are back down one level at http://myhost.com/img/image.jpg, so
instead of using the full path to the image, the code in
dir1/index.html accesses the images by going back one level and up to
the img/ directory "../img".

Is there a way for the validator to ignore this type of entry.  The
reason I ask is because it takes up a large portion of the report for
our site even though it is simply a warning, and not a truly "broken"

y Thanks,


On 5/1/06, Philip Semanchuk <philip@semanchuk.com> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2006, at 2:56 PM, Jeffrey Chandler wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > First of all, I would like to point out that I am not a web-designer,
> > but I have been tasked with setting up the link checker software
> > locally on one of our systems to check a production site for broken
> > links.  After running checklink from the command line, a significant
> > portion of the report is due to the following:
> >
> > http://myhost.com/../img/image.jpg
> >
> > What to do: Usually the sign of a malformed URL that cannot be parsed
> > by the server.
> > Response status code: 400
> > Response message: Bad Request
> >
> > The link still works, but the Link Checker is complaining due to the
> > "dot dot slash" notation in the markup.  The links to these images
> > work fine from the site, but the Link Checker does not list it as
> > valid.
> >
> > Is there a way to have the Link Checker ignore code that uses this
> > notation, or should our developers use the absolute path or a
> > different coding convention?
> Hi Jeffrey,
> My guess is that the link checker is not complaining about the use of a
> relative path, but rather that the relative path doesn't make sense.
> Reading from left to right, that URL says:
> 1) Start at the root
> 2) Move up one directory (!)
> 3) Move down into the img directory
> Step 2 doesn't make sense because you're already at the highest level
> you can go. The specification that governs path interpretation (RFC
> 3986: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/rfc/rfc3986.html#sec-5.2.4) says that
> leading ".."s should be ignored, so a browser looking at that link
> would be correct in resolving this:
> http://example.com/../img/image.jpg
> to this:
> http://example.com/img/image.jpg
> I guess that's what's going on in your case? Anyway, the Link Checker
> is probably just trying to warn you that what you coded doesn't make
> logical sense even though it is syntactically valid and your browser
> handles it.
> Philip
Received on Monday, 1 May 2006 14:49:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:48 UTC