Re: URI test cases?

At 09:17 AM 2/24/03 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:

>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".

I've got both in my test suite for now.  I'll sort out which to keep later.

How does this square with these cases?:

   ('file:/ex/x/y/z', 'file:/ex/x/r', '../r'),
   ('file:/ex/x/y/z', 'file:/r', '/r'),        # I prefer this. - tbl

If using a root-relative path, wouldn't the first be:

   ('file:/ex/x/y/z', 'file:/ex/x/r', '/ex/x/r'),

?  (Maybe that's what the "I prefer" case aims to show?)

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>

Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 10:57:29 UTC