[uf-discuss] URL and Relative paths
martin at weborganics.co.uk
Wed Sep 3 11:50:37 PDT 2008
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:
>>> 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:
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.
> Sarven Capadisli
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
More information about the microformats-discuss