RE: ISSUE: Protection space
Paul Leach (paulle@microsoft.com)
Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:17:15 -0700
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Kristol [mailto:dmk@bell-labs.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 11:04 AM
> To: Paul Leach
> Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: Re: ISSUE: Protection space
>
>
> Paul Leach wrote:
> > [...]
> > > [DMK]
> > > Since all URLs on a server are implicitly
> > > descended from "/"
> > > (no?), wouldn't it be easier just to say that relative URLs
> > > are taken to
> > > be relative to "/"?
> >
> > The list allows absolute URIs with host names other than
> that of the server
> > sending the "domain" directive.
>
> Are we talking about two different things?
Maybe. See next comment.
I'm not concerned with
> absolute URLs. For them the protected set of URLs is obvious.
I think of two kinds of "relative URLs" -- "dir/foo.html" and
"/dir/foo.html". The latter is relative to (e.g.) http://www.xxx.com, the
former to the URL of page in which it appears (typically). I don't think the
former belong in a domain list.
> Here's the wording at issue (Sect. 3.2.1):
> If a URI is relative, it is relative to [the] canonical root
> URL of the
> server being accessed.
>
> My notion of a relative URL is one that does not begin with '/'. For
> such a URL, wouldn't it make sense to give them an implicit
> '/' prefix?
How about I say that URI in "domain=URI..." must be an "http_UTL" or
"abs_path" as defined in section 3.2.2 of the HTTP/1.1 spec?
The former is the usual "http://www.xxx.com:port/dir/foo.html" type; the
latter is "/dir/foo.html".
Paul