Quoting [Ceriel Jacobs] (Dec 13 2007):
Andre Merzky wrote:
Quoting [Thilo Kielmann] (Dec 13 2007):
The motivation for relative paths is: an absoute path immediately becomes a URL, (well, a URL-shaped string)
Why is that?
tmp/data.bin <-- relative /tmp/data.bin <-- absolute
http://localhost/tmp/data.bin <-- relative
Well, according to RFC 1738 it is, but RFC 1738 has been superseeded by RFC 2396, which in turn has been superseeded by RFC 3986. Both of these consider the above an absolute URI, with an absolute path "/tmp/data.bin".
Uhm, how is a relative path then expressed? I tried to read that from the document but couldn't... Or is that impossible in an absolute URI? (I take that this is an URI where scheme and authority are present?) Thanks, Andre.
http://localhost//tmp/data.bin <-- absolute
Yes, but the second '//' is equivalent to '/'.
And, the idea is: "relative path", not "absolute URI with relative path".
There is no real difference here in appearance, apart from the slash leading the path element of the URL. I say its confusing to allow one form but not the other.
Thilo's suggestion allows neither. He only wants to allow relative \emph{path}s, which I agree is the cleanest solution.
Cheers, Ceriel
-- No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however, a significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.