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

RE: JW12: relative URI's

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 17:34:25 -0700
To: "'DASL'" <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBIKLAGLCOPGKGADOJKECCCDAA.ejw@ics.uci.edu>
I can certainly live with this, too.  It certainly is much simpler to not
allow relative URIs, which is a compelling reason to disallow them.

- Jim

>
> 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 20:38:05 GMT

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