On Tue, October 31, 2006 4:58 am, Robin Vickery wrote:
> On 30/10/06, Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 12:28 +0100, Robin Vickery wrote:
>> > On 30/10/06, Ivo F.A.C. Fokkema <I.F.A.C.Fokkema@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:40:47 -0600, Richard Lynch wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Fri, October 27, 2006 4:53 pm, Børge Holen wrote:
>> > > >> On Friday 27 October 2006 19:34, Richard Lynch wrote:
>> > > >>> And the header("Location: ...") requires a full URL.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> No it doesn't. but he's missing an ' at first glance
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes, it does:
>> > > > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.30
>> > > >
>> > > > Note the use of 'absolute' within that section.
>> > >
>> > > Although I always use a full URL as well, doesn't absolute just
>> mean
>> > > non-relative? As in:
>> > > Location: /Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.30
>> > > (absolute URI)
>> > >
>> > > Location: ./rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.30
>> > > (relative URI)
>> >
>> > If you need contextual information to make sense of the URI (such
>> as
>> > the server name from a previous request) then it's not absolute.
>> >
>> > RFC 2396: Uniform Resource Identifiers
>> >
>> > "An absolute identifier refers to a resource independent of the
>> > context in which the identifier is used. In contrast, a relative
>> > identifier refers to a resource by describing the difference
>> within a
>> > hierarchical namespace between the current context and an absolute
>> > identifier of the resource."
>>
>> Please note you are quoting from an RFC with the following title:
>>
>> Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax
>>
>> Pay special attention to "Generic Syntax" in the title.
>>
>> The RFC linked by Richard clearly indicates that for the Location
>> response-header that "the field value consists of a single absolute
>> URI". This currently has the final word for the Location
>> response-header
>> and therefore is the standard.
Please note that the link I posted is part of this document:
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616.html
Also note that THIS section of that document:
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec3.html#sec3.2.1
clearly states:
For definitive information on URL syntax and semantics, see
"Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI):
Generic Syntax and Semantics,"
and provides a link to:
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec17.html#bib42
which in turn links to:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt
which is, in fact, the document cited.
Are we all on the same page now?
Is there any doubt in anybody's mind that the standards clearly
require an absoluteURI, complete with scheme (e.g., http://)?
:-) :-) :-)
I just wanted to make it clear to any newbie reader whose wishful
thinking was leading them astray that they should NOT rely on a
non-absolute URI if they want to be standards-compliant.
It is rare that one cannot take an extra few seconds and compose the
standards-compliant URI.
--
Some people have a "gift" link here.
Know what I want?
I want you to buy a CD from some starving artist.
http://cdbaby.com/browse/from/lynch
Yeah, I get a buck. So?
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
