- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
- Date: 1999年2月18日 21:44:51 -0800
- To: John Stracke <francis@appoint.net>
- cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-ID: <9902182145.aa10122@paris.ics.uci.edu>
>One problem with the current idea of relative references: the notes say, "If >reftarget is relative, the client has the burden of figuring out the value of >the absolute URL.". This sounds fine--clients already have code for relative >URLs--but it won't work, because a 302's Location: header is required to >provide an absolute URI (see RFC-2068, section 14.30). (Plus, of course, it >doesn't work at all for direct references.) Right, the server must handle the relative to absolute conversion. Most servers already do this for config or cgi-based redirects. >I'd say that the Right Thing to do for expanding relative references is to >base them off of the Request-URI of the request you're currently processing. >This shouldn't be too hard: for the spec, point to RFC-1808 (with a note that >the "base document" is the reference itself); for the implementation, lift >some code from lynx or Mozilla or something. That would be RFC 2396. ....Roy
Received on Friday, 19 February 1999 00:48:23 UTC