Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>
- To: Uche Ogbuji <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:23:01 -0500
Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> > <SNIP/>
> > > 4) a string of the form "http://foo.org/bar.txt#baz" is a URI
> > > 5) a string of the form "www.whatever.com/foo.bar" is NOT a URI
> > <SNIP/>
> > Does anyone else get irritated that the rest of the world seems to think
> > that 4 and 5 are the same? I see lots and lots of advertisements in
> > magazines and on television that have 'URLs' of the form
> > with no preceding 'http://'. In fact I'm even more irritated now that
> > Outlook Express has highlighted the www. as if it were a link...
> Who says "www.whatever.com/foo.bar" is not a URI reference? Certainly not
> RFC 2396.
You really *are* trying to confuse everyone right? :-)
Though it is common practice to expand the string 'www.whatever.com' into
http://www.whatever.com , per RFC 2396 the (relative) URI reference
'www.whatever.com' is not equivalent to the (absolute) URI reference
Most everyone expects to see 'www.whatever.com' as the 'authority' per RFC
2396. Such a string *could* also be a 'rel_segment' and hence
'www.whatever.com/foo.bar' matches the production 'rel_path' and hence
'relativeURI', but interpreting this as a relativeURI (and hence a URI
reference) will result in unexpected behavior.
When resolving a relative URI, an absolute URI is created by combining the
relative URI with the base URI. Suppose the string is used within the
and you are interpreting the string "www.whatever.com/foo.bar" as a relative
URI. The resultant absolute URI would be:
Is that what you expect?
The Open Healthcare Group