Re: Rehash of literal-vs-relative argument status

"David G. Durand" wrote:

> We have as little agreement about comparison of relative URI
> references as we ever have.

Agreed.  :-)

> Deprecating, and perhaps forbidding them
> is the best way around the the _lack of agreement_ on this
> fundamental issue.

Deprecating them does not help me, because I must define the (superficial)
semantics of even deprecated constructs in the Infoset.

> I also argue that we have seen that even developers are a bit fuzzy
> about the details of the definition of the absolutize function, and
> that it produces counter-intuitive results for URI references that
> have more leading ../'s than the base URI has path components.

Not counterintuitive, just erroneous.  RFC 2396 5.2.7.g:

#      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.

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2000 13:05:59 UTC