Andreas Otte wrote,
> From RFC 1808 to RFC 2396 the handling of relative urls changed
> in some way:
Despite the fact that RFC 2396 conflicts with RFC 1808, that's
not the intention. See Roy's comments below ...
==========================
From: Roy T. Fielding
Sent: 26 March 1999 1:45 am
To: Miles Sabin
Subject: Re: Typo in RFC 2396?
You are right, that is an error. Not exactly a typo though -- that
was the common result prior to IE4 and Netscape 4.5 -- but the algorithm
was restored to 1808-style late in the process.
....Roy
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
edia.co.uk>, Miles Sabin writes:
>Hi,
>
>I've been working through the relative URI resolution
>mechanism in RFC 2396, and I've spotted something which
>seems a little odd. The example resolution on p.29 for,
>
> ?y
>
>from,
>
> http://a/b/c/d;p?q
>
>is given as,
>
> http://a/b/c/?y
>
>but as far as I can make out, the resolution algorithm
>suggests the result ought to be,
>
> http://a/b/c/d;p?y
>
>which is the result that was given in RFC 1808. It's
>also the result that both Netscape 4 and IE 4 deliver.
>
>Given that this would be an observable change in
>behaviour between the two RFCs, I'm a little surprised
>that it wasn't flagged up as such if the change really
>was intended ...
>
>Strangely enough, Sun's badly broken java.net.URL class
>_does_ give the result specified in 2396, which makes me
>suspect that something must be wrong ;-)
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>Miles
>
>--
>Miles Sabin Cromwell Media
>Internet Systems Architect 5/6 Glenthorne Mews
>+44 (0)181 410 2230 London, W6 0LJ
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] England
