Re: Standards compliance versus compatibility

[Clarence (Andreas M. Schneider)]

Andreas Otte wrote:
> 
> Clarence (Andreas M. Schneider) wrote:
> >
> > |   RFC 1808 (Section 4) defined an empty URL reference (a reference
> > |   containing nothing aside from the fragment identifier) as being a
> > |   reference to the base URL.  Unfortunately, that definition could be
> > |   interpreted, upon selection of such a reference, as a new retrieval
> > |   action on that resource.  Since the normal intent of such references
> > |   is for the user agent to change its view of the current document to
> > |   the beginning of the specified fragment within that document, not to
> > |   make an additional request of the resource, a description of how to
> > |   correctly interpret an empty reference has been added in Section 4.
> >
> > I doubt the "normal intent" is as described. Now we have 3 possible
> > solutions for resolving "" (if we want to follow RFC 2396):
> >
> > 1) Take RFC 2396 literally:
> >    "http://www.foo.bar/path;param/file;param?query#";
> >
> > 2) Follow the spirit of RFC 2396, i.e. do what the "normal intent" is:
> >    "http://www.foo.bar/path;param/";
> >
> > 3) Follow the logic used elsewhere in RFC 2396 (with the correction
> >    mentioned in 9kjgda$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:9kjgda$[EMAIL PROTECTED] ):
> >    "http://www.foo.bar/path;param/file;param?query#ref";
> >
> > 4) Fall back to RFC 1808 (same as (3))
> >
> > (1) and (3) should not validate the document at the server.
> >
> > I would now prefer (3), but it might be more reasonable to apply (2).
> > And if we want to conform strictly with RFC 2396, we should do (1).
> 
> Where have you found that "normal intent" (2). On which part in RFC 2396
> is that based? I cant't read that from the above part of RFC 2396.

Both IE and NS 4.x resolve "" to "http://www.foo.bar/path;param/";
for a base URI "http://www.foo.bar/path;param/file;param?query#ref";.
I assume that anybody using "" wants to have it working in at least
one of the major browsers and most of them will test it.

If an RFC refers to "normal intent", it seems obvious to me that
it doesn't want to establish a behavior different to existent
implementations in that particular issue. Stating (1) as normal
intent seems at least as wrong to me as the example how to resolve
"?query2".

Clarence