Re: Relative URIs strike again

[Michael Becke]

But what exactly is the correct behaviour? At least two major browsers implement this behaviour in a different way than you would immediately expect. This could just be a bug in them, or it could be a legitimate ambiguity. To clarify, which of the following do you interpret as the correct behaviour?

["base" + "rel" = "abs"]
A:
"http://www.foo.com/foop.html"; + "" = "http://www.foo.com/foop.html";
"http://www.foo.com/foop.html"; + "#" = "http://www.foo.com/foop.html";

B:
"http://www.foo.com/foop.html"; + "" = "http://www.foo.com/foop.html";
"http://www.foo.com/foop.html"; + "#" = "http://www.foo.com/foop.html#";

I believe A is correct. The RFC is a little vague(particularly when there is a query) in this case as it just says to use "the current document".

There are more actual possible permutations than A and B but they are two likely groups of choices.

I wrote a little snippet[1] to test the URI behaviour and got the following:

HttpClient:
"http://www.foo.com/foop.html"; + "" = "http://www.foo.com/foop.html";
"http://www.foo.com/foop.html"; + "#" = "http://www.foo.com/foop.html";

It would seem that HttpClient is doing A. Note that I just did a cvs update right now and didn't apply any patches, so I may have missed some code that is pending.

This behavior looks correct. It seems that the empty case was fixed yesterday.

Incidentally, when I tried a relative URI of "#foop" I got the following:

"http://www.foo.com/foop.html"; + "#foop" = "http://www.foo.com/foop.html";

Surely this is incorrect?

This is something I ran across as well. The fragment is not dropped, but is left out of the standard URI. To get the full URI you have to use URI.getURIReference().

Mike


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]