- From: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:09:58 +0100
- To: URI <uri@w3.org>
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:44:18 +0100, Daniel R. Tobias <dan@tobias.name> wrote: > On 10 Oct 2007 at 20:45, Charles Lindsey wrote: > >> It is only the rare cases where you want to change scheme at the same >> time >> as using a relative URL that the problem under discussion arises. > > What, exactly, would that be relative to? If your original document > is not being accessed as a "file:" URI, then you don't have a base > path under that scheme from which to reference relative "file:" URIs. Indeed, but it seemed that the OP was addressing the problem of certain file URLs that appeared to be allowed but to have no clear meaning. It seems I am misunderstanding the original problem, but it seemed to be related to file URLs (which presumably had been picked up from other documents, e.g. HTML documents) and which had no obvious Path to anchor them to. So I was trying to think of circumstances where such beasts might be expected to arise, and where a relative URL would not work for some reason. If no such circumstances exist, then the OP's problem does not exist. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2007 19:10:22 UTC