Stefan H. Holek wrote at 2003-12-3 15:25 +0100:
 > No, no and 3 times no! The fix was done by Evan and is CORRECT. 
 > absolute_url () does not (and should not!) know anything about CMF or 
 > portals or whatever else!


 > It MUST however return correct results in all possible VH situations and 
 > this is what the fix addresses.

But, when "absolute_url(1)" behaves as Yuppie describes, it does not
behave correct.

Let's look at it from a semantic point of view:

  HTTP knows two kinds of absolute URL references, univeral
  absolute URLs (containing the protocol and the server) and server 
  relative absolute URL (starting with a "/").

  The first notion is supported by "absolute_url()".
  For unknown reasons, "absolute_url(1)" only almost realizes
  the second notion (it lacks the leading "/"). But, we
  became familiar with this deficiency.

  When you accept that "absolute_url(1)" should come near
  to the notion of server relative absolute URL, then
  it *must* return an URL with respect to the currently
  active site root. Otherwise, the browser using this URL
  will interpret it wrongly. It may still work due to acquisition,
  but this is more by accident.

Thus, I agree with Yuppie. If "absolute_url(1)" behaves as he describes,
then it is wrong and there is no longer an easy way to implement
the notion of "server relative absolute URL reference".


Zope-Dev maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to