Clarence (Andreas M. Schneider) wrote:
> Andreas Otte wrote:
>
>>and that would be "http://www.foo.bar/path/file;param?query#";
>>or "http://www.foo.bar/path/file;param?query"; which are equivalent.
>>
>
[...]
>
> | 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).
>
> Clarence
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.
Andreas
