- From: Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@beach.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jan 1996 15:56:57 -0500
- To: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, www-talk@w3.org
In message <199601021824.KAA07765@bert.amazon.com>, Shel Kaphan writes: >Daniel W. Connolly writes: > > I agree that it's not the way I'd like it to work. However, according > > RFC1808, it's quite clearly a feature: > > > > http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Addressing/rfc1808.txt > > > > 5. Examples and Recommended Practice > > > > Within an object with a well-defined base URL of > > > > Base: <URL:http://a/b/c/d;p?q#f> > > > > the relative URLs would be resolved as follows: > > ... > >Sorry if I'm being dense, but I'm not exactly sure what the >relationship is between resolving relative URLs and using (or losing) >a fragment after a redirection. If you issue a request on request on URL > bla1#fragment >and get redirected to bla2, then the desired >behavior after the client fetches and receives bla2 is to use >"#fragment" to seek into the document. Since #fragments are not part >of the URL sent in either the first or second request to the server, >where does resolution of relative URLs come into it? Hmmm... good point. I guess I was out in left field. You're right: Defn: go(U#F) = view(get(U), F) If: get(U) = get(U') (redirection) -------------------------- Then: go(U#F) = view(get(U'), F) Dan
Received on Tuesday, 2 January 1996 15:57:50 UTC