- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:17:57 -0600
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 12:08, Graham Klyne wrote: > At 10:27 AM 2/19/03 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > >On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 09:20, Graham Klyne wrote: > > > Is there a suite of test cases for URis, covering basic syntax, finding > > > relative forms, finding absolute forms, etc.? > > > >Good question. > > > >I keep a set of test cases in > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/uripath.py > > Maybe a couple of others to consider?: > > "http://example/x/y%2Fz" "http://example/x/abc" "abc" > "http://example/x/y/z" "http://example/x%2Fabc" "../../x%2Fabc" > "http://example/x/y%2Fz" "http://example/x%2Fabc" "../x%2Fabc" > "http://example/x%2Fy/z" "http://example/x%2Fy/abc" "abc" OK, I added these, after a tweak... TimBL prefers root-relative paths, i.e. "/x%2Fabc" to "../../x%2Fabc" Both are correct relative paths from here to there, but our code currently does "/x%2Fabc". I don't really like it; it doesn't support moving filesets around as well as it could. But I haven't convinced timbl, nor have I completely debugged an algorithm for returning "../../x%2Fabc". -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 10:21:46 UTC