On 2012-05-21 18:31, Michael Dürig wrote:
I'm fine with such a change. However we will need to take that relative path segments (. and ..) are never passed to the Oak API. That is,node.getNode("foo/../../bar") should not pass this path verbatim to the Oak API. ...
Jukka's proposal (earlier in this thread) was to always resolve the relative Oak path against the current tree; so in theory this should handle all valid relative paths; and fail reliably on broken ones...
