That's what the RFC says... But that's not the way that a browser
handles it. I don't know why browsers don't support the "standards,"
but that's not exactly the topic.
Every browser I've ever tested with, including LWP, lynx and AOL,
have supported relative Location headers.
If the W3 wants to document it incorrectly or change the unofficial
standard, then they are wasting their time.
Rob
>On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Robert Landrum wrote:
>
>> If all browsers followed the W3 standards the world would be a better
>> place...
>>
>> They say "...field value consists of a single absolute URL."
>> ^^^ I think
>> they mean URI because the example says "absoluteURI", not URL.
>>
>> An absolute URI is
>>
>> /some/location
>
>No, that is not an absolute URI. absoluteURI is defined unabiguously in
>RFC 2068:
>
>absoluteURI = scheme ":" *( uchar | reserved )
>
>So, you see, an absoluteURI MUST contain the scheme.
>
>>
>> But so is
>>
>> http://www.somehost.com/some/location
>>
>> Both are valid URIs and both absolute. One is more qualified than the
>> other.
>
>No.
>
>> A relative URI is
>>
>> some/location
>>
>> which is incorrect, and not what I meant in my message.
>>
>> Which brings us to the next point...
>>
>> By using relative *URLs* such as /some/location, you avoid changing
>> the location field in the browser window, which is often desired. If
>> you use an absolute *URL*, the location field changes to the absolute
>> URL.
>
>This is the desired behavior.
>
>> You can try it with a simple perl script CGI.
>>
>> #!/usr/bin/perl print "Location: /some/location/\n\n";
>>
>> or
>>
>> #!/usr/bin/perl print "Location:
>> http://somehost.com/some/location/\n\n";
>
>-jwb
Robert L. Landrum
Senior Programmer
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNIX was not designed to stop its users from doing stupid things,
as that would also stop them from doing clever things. --- Doug Gwyn
