- From: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 14:27:24 -0400
- To: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Paul Leach wrote: >> [...] > I think of two kinds of "relative URLs" -- "dir/foo.html" and > "/dir/foo.html". The latter is relative to (e.g.) http://www.xxx.com, the > former to the URL of page in which it appears (typically). I don't think the > former belong in a domain list. > > > Here's the wording at issue (Sect. 3.2.1): > > If a URI is relative, it is relative to [the] canonical root > > URL of the > > server being accessed. > > > > My notion of a relative URL is one that does not begin with '/'. For > > such a URL, wouldn't it make sense to give them an implicit > > '/' prefix? > > How about I say that URI in "domain=URI..." must be an "http_UTL" or > "abs_path" as defined in section 3.2.2 of the HTTP/1.1 spec? > The former is the usual "http://www.xxx.com:port/dir/foo.html" type; the > latter is "/dir/foo.html". That's much clearer. Sold. Dave Kristol
Received on Friday, 7 August 1998 11:29:28 UTC