[uf-discuss] URL and Relative paths

[Martin McEvoy]

Hello Sarven

Sarven Capadisli wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Scott Reynen <scott at randomchaos.com> wrote:
>   
>> On [Sep 2], at [ Sep 2] 6:45 , Martin McEvoy wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> I think relative urls on the whole are "bad form"  because many authors
>>> forget to set the base url for their relative paths...
>>>       
>> There's nothing wrong with that.  See:
>>
>> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1808.html
>>
>>     
>>> 3.3. Base URL from the Retrieval URL
>>>
>>> If no base URL is embedded and the document is not encapsulated within
>>> some other entity (e.g., the top level of a composite entity), then, if a
>>> URL was used to retrieve the base document, that URL shall be considered the
>>> base URL.
>>>       
>
>
> I was going to respond to this last night with an RFC line as well but
> figured that it wasn't a direct response to Martin's "bad form"
> statement. If I understand Martin's statement correctly (Martin,
> correct me if I'm wrong), he is talking about the general use of
> relative URLs in absence of the base element e.g., relative URLs from
> an external resource in an iframe can potentially resolve to
> unintended URIs if the base element is missing.
>   
Yes Correct, Its bad in other ways because it makes parsers much more 
complex trying to determine things like:

./
..
../
../there
../..
../../
../../that

Its just my opinion however so don't take me too seriously :-)
> Surely, a relative URL is resolved to full URI and in and of itself
> this is not "bad form".
>   

No it isn't.


Best Wishes


Martin McEvoy
> Sarven Capadisli
> http://www.csarven.ca
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>