- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 00:19:05 -0800
- To: "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@Rational.Com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I am not arguing that relative URLs must be banned from everything, everywhere. I am just asking that relative URL support be removed from the DAV:RefTarget element used in the MKRESOURCE method. If there is a scenario where a MKRESOURCE intended to create a redirect resource cannot properly work without the ability to specify a relative URL in the DAV:RefTarget XML element then I will withdraw my objection. Otherwise, based on K.I.S.S. and my arguments below, we need to pull out relative URL support in the DAV:RefTarget XML element. Yaron > -----Original Message----- > From: Clemm, Geoff [mailto:gclemm@Rational.Com] > Sent: Sun, February 20, 2000 5:54 PM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: RE: Yaron.Redirect.NoRelative > > > There are many cases where "fixing up the references" is not feasible. > For example, if you are not moving a collection, but rather > are creating > an alias for it (e.g. via BIND), then you need references that work > with either of the legal names for the collection. > > Since relative references are trivial for a server to implement, and > very useful for many client applications, I believe it is important > for them to be supported. > > Cheers, > Geoff > > > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Yaron Goland > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 2:53 AM > To: 'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org' > Subject: Yaron.Redirect.NoRelative > > > Section 9 of the redirect spec allows for the use of relative > URIs in the > reftarget production. Relative URIs are an extremely > dangerous feature that > have caused havoc amongst system implementers. Even so, in many > circumstances they offer such a high value that the problems > they cause are > worth dealing with. I do not believe that this is one of those > circumstances. > The primary (and in my opinion only) utility for relative > URIs is to allow > humans to type in relative URIs so that they can create links > and documents > without having to specify their final location. For example, > a web site > designer can use Notepad to type in the links for their web page using > relative URLs. That way the web site designer can test out > the site in their > test location and not have to go through and change all the > links when they > move it to their final destination. > This exact functionality could, of course, be implemented > automatically. For > example, Microsoft FrontPage is able to check Office and HTML > documents and > identify their links. If an Office or HTML document is moved > then FrontPage > will automatically check all the links, see if the move > breaks any of them > and if so it will automatically fix them. > Hence the utility of relative URIs is mainly that it saves > some humans in > some cases some work. That is, it was easier to implement > relative URIs then > to enable all servers to read all file formats and be able to > fix links. > There is a second benefit to relative URIs that apply > uniquely to protocols > - they save bytes. If one is returning a large number of > links that are all > relative to some base one can save bytes by returning the > URIs in a relative > form. > The downside to relative URIs is figuring out what the base is. HTTP > provides at least two different mechanisms including the > request-URI and the > content-base header. Various data formats then provide their > own solutions. > Both HTML and XML have proposals/implementations for what the > base should > be. The rules for figuring out the base are complex and > rarely implemented > consistently. As the PM for WinInet dealing with the > subtleties of relative > URIs was one of the banes of my experience. > What is especially bad is the conflict. If a request has a > content-base > header and a base specification in the HTML in the request > which one is to > be used? There are rules for figuring this out but they are > rarely properly > implemented. > The end result of the confusion is that it is best to avoid > relative URIs > whenever possible. > In the case of WebDAV the human benefits for the use of > relative URIs are > obviously irrelevant. Therefore the only argument for the use > of relative > URIs is that they save bytes. However given that we are using XML the > bandwidth taken by the URIs is the absolutely least of our > problems. As such > when choosing between a simple, easy to process rule "the URI > is always > absolute" and a rule that introduces additional complexity for little > benefit "the URI is relative", we should clearly come down on > the side of > simplicity. > Therefore I move that relative URIs be removed from protocol > elements in the > redirect spec and that section 9 be deleted in its entirety. >
Received on Monday, 21 February 2000 03:19:29 UTC