Now, that is very interesting!!!
So basically one of the authors of RFC2396 says, some examples of
relative url resolution in the rfc are wrong, they are not conforming to
the algorithm which is conforming to RFC 1808 and so should the examples.
That would be a nice resolution of some differences between the
conflicting rfcs.
Andreas
Miles Sabin wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
>
>
