- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:26:57 +0100
- To: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
- CC: URI <uri@w3.org>
Charles Lindsey wrote: > > 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. file:foo, file:foo/bar file:/foo and file:/foo/bar are *not* allowed according to the RFC, but are widely used in practice, and at least plausibly useful. > 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. > I think I identified a case in which these circumstances do exist, it is a judgement call whether such a case is in-scope. Jeremy
Received on Monday, 15 October 2007 10:27:22 UTC