- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:52:41 -0600
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Cc: uri@w3.org, "'Williams, Stuart'" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>
On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 23:58, Larry Masinter wrote: > Whether "a/./b/../c" in a path component is equivalent to > "a/c" is entirely dependent on the definition of > the URI scheme. No, it's not. The algorithm for expanding a URI reference to absolute form w.r.t. a base is scheme-independent, as is the x + (y-x) = y axiom. So http://example.dom/a/./b/../c isn't a URI, if you ask me. Nor is qbert://example.dom/a/./b/../c . and .. are only allowed as path segments in URI references, not in (absolute) URIs. > Some schemes may define the two as > equivalent, others may not. > > The current definition of the 'http' URI scheme > (in RFC 2616) does not specify this equivalence, > although apparently popular browsers will turn > http://example.dom/a/./b/../c into > http://example.dom/a/c before sending. > > Do you think it should apply to all URI schemes > that use the "generic syntax"? "rtsp:"? "ldap:"? yes. > What about schemes that use something like > the "generic syntax" but make modifications? Schemes can refine the generic syntax, but they can't change it. > Note that mailto:a/./b/../@test.com sends a message > to a/./b/../@test.com, well, it identifies that mailbox, anyway. > i.e., it doesn't process > them. URIs don't process anything. > > I'm having trouble telling what happens without > a protocol trace with > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/../ietf/00dec/, or > with ldap:. > > But I think it is a good idea to resist the > tendency to jump from examination of the > behavior of http URIs to assert properties > of all URIs. The / in URI syntax is there to provide a scheme-independent syntax for hierarchy. > > Larry -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 09:52:47 UTC