W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > February 2004

Re: More test cases to be confirmed

From: Adam M. Costello BOGUS address, see signature <BOGUS@BOGUS.nicemice.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 03:38:24 +0000
To: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040220033824.GA3603~@nicemice.net>

Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> wrote:

> (3)
> Base:   "foo:a"
> Ref:    "../b/c"
> Result: "foo:/b/c"
> (based on bullet 2 of section 5.2.4)
> 
> I think it would be more consistent (and it's also what software I wrote in 
> the past does) in this case to return:
> 
> Result: "foo:../b/c"

For what it's worth, RFC-2396 allows either result (and also allows the
implemention to balk).  See section 5.2 item 6g:

      g) If the resulting buffer string still begins with one or
         more complete path segments of "..", then the reference is
         considered to be in error.  Implementations may handle this
         error by retaining these components in the resolved path (i.e.,
         treating them as part of the final URI), by removing them from
         the resolved path (i.e., discarding relative levels above the
         root), or by avoiding traversal of the reference.

Apparently the intention of the new draft is to revoke this
indeterminacy and settle on a single behavior (discard initial ".."),
but of course there will be existing implementations that made a
different choice.  Discarding initial ".." is consistent with typical
Unix behavior: /../../../etc/passwd is equivalent to /etc/passwd on most
Unix-like platforms.

> (4)
> Base:   "foo:a"
> Ref:    "./b/c"
> Result: "foo:b/c"
> 
> This is not strictly according to RFC2396bis, which I think would have
> the value returned be:
> 
> Result: "foo:/b/c"
> 
> I think "./b/c" should be treated as equivalent to "b/c"

I agree that the current draft would have the result be "foo:/b/c", and
I fully agree that "./b/c" should be treated as equivalent to "b/c",
especially since we need to use this equivalence when a segment contains
a colon.  Here's a motivating example:

The document foo:a wants to link to the document foo:b:c/d.  It can't
use the relative reference "b:c/d" because the b: looks like a scheme.
If it uses the absolute reference "foo:b:c/d" then it won't be easily
movable to another scheme (like foos, the secure version of foo).  What
it really wants to use is "./b:c/d" (as suggested in RFC-2396), but
the current draft will resolve that to "foo:/b:c/d", which is not the
target.

I think the problem is in remove_dot_segments.

Here's another surprising result of that algorithm:

Base:   "foo:a/b"
Ref:    "../c"
Result: "foo:/c"

I would expect the result "foo:c", because "../c" is supposed to
be a sibling of my parent, and the parent of foo:a/b is foo:a, and
intuitively foo:c is a sibling of foo:a, but foo:/c is not.  The
RFC-2396 algorithm would produce "foo:c", but admittedly that algorithm
was intended only for base paths that begin with slash.

Another surprising result:

Base:   "foo:a"
Ref:    "foo:."
Result: "foo:."

I would expect the result "foo:" (empty path).

Similarly:

Base:   "foo:a"
Ref:    "foo:.."
Result: "foo:.."

These last two cases are the only cases where remove_dot_segments fails
to live up to its name.

Not surprisingly, the strange cases all involve base paths that don't
begin with slash, which was never considered in RFC-2396.

A slash at the beginnig of a path is not like the other slashes, because
usually it is not there by choice, but is obligated to be present to
separate the first segment from the authority.  The remove_dot_segments
procedure needs to preserve the separator: it's not safe for the output
path to begin with a non-slash unless the input path begins with a
non-slash.

Since the initial slash is so unique, maybe it makes sense to handle it
separately: remove the initial slash (if there is one), then remove the
dot segments, the restore the initial slash (if there was one).  This
would be easy to understand and remember (so people wouldn't have to
always go back and look at the pseudocode), and would obviously preserve
the separator, and would free the guts of the algorithm from having
to worry about both kinds of paths (those that begin with a slash and
those that begin with a segment), it could be designed for just one kind
(paths that begin with a segment).

Consider this for remove_dot_segments:

 1) initialize the input buffer
 2) initialize the output buffer to the empty string
 3) if the input buffer begins with a slash then delete it and set a
    flag F, otherwise clear F
 4) while the input buffer is not empty, loop:
     a) delete the beginning of the input buffer up to and including the
        first slash (or to the end if there is no slash), and remember
        the deleted text in a variable S
     b) if S is neither "." nor "./" nor ".." nor "../" then append S to
        the end of the output buffer
     c) if S is ".." or "../" then delete everything after the
        second-last last slash in the output buffer (or everything if
        there are fewer than two slashes)
 5) if F is set then insert a slash at the start of the output buffer
 6) return the output buffer

I think this agrees with the current draft (and RFC-2396) for inputs
that begin with a slash (someone please check that), and behaves more
like we expect for inputs that don't begin with a slash.  It drops
leading ".." segments, but doesn't insert an initial slash if the
input didn't have one, so that /foo/../../../bar becomes /bar (same as
/foo/../bar), but foo/../../../bar becomes bar (same as foo/../bar).

By the way, there is an ambiguity in the draft:

   1. If the input buffer begins with a prefix of "/./" or "/.", where
      "." is a complete path segment, then replace that prefix with "/"

Suppose the input buffer is "/./foo".  It begins with a prefix of "/./"
and it begins with a prefix of "/.", so which prefix do I replace with
"/"? The intention was presumably longest-match-wins, but that is not
stated.

AMC
http://www.nicemice.net/amc/
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2004 22:38:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:07 UTC