W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > July to September 1999

RE: JW12: relative URI's

From: Yaron Goland (Exchange) <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 17:23:16 -0700
Message-ID: <078292D50C98D2118D090008C7E9C6A601947446@STAY.platinum.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "'Jim Whitehead'" <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, "'DASL'" <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
In general I find relative URIs to be a very bad idea. The reason is that
there is constant confusion as to what the hell the base is. Everyone is
constantly adding new features for specifying the base (such as the base
header in HTTP) which older systems don't necessarily support and so confuse
matters even more. The most robust rule is to just fully specify all URLs
whenever possible. I am not aware of any scenarios in the case of DASL that
would require the use of relative URLs, as such, they should be avoided.

		Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Whitehead [mailto:ejw@ics.uci.edu]
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 1999 5:07 PM
> To: 'DASL'
> Subject: RE: JW12: relative URI's
> 
> 
> I was originally proposing that we not allow relative URIs.  
> Since a search
> arbiter might actually be part of, or nearby to the search scope, it's
> probably OK to allow relative URLs.  The specification should 
> be clear what
> the base URI is for their calculation, though.
> 
> - Jim
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Babich, Alan
> > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 1999 3:44 PM
> > To: 'DASL'
> > Subject: JW12: relative URI's
> >
> >
> > Jim W.: Are you proposing we drop relative URI's, or are you
> > just making a comment?
> >
> > Alan Babich
> >
> 
Received on Monday, 16 August 1999 20:23:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 03:38:04 GMT