Re: LYNX-DEV Question about BASE implementation

[Klaus Weide]

On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, Foteos Macrides wrote:

> Klaus Weide <address@hidden> wrote:
> >On Sat, 19 Oct 1996, Subir Grewal wrote:
> >
> >> I noticed that when I use BASE, the internal links are resolved by tagging
> >> the URL in BASE to the front of the document.  I was wondering whether
> >> there's a difference between relative links and internal links and
> >> whether clients are expected to discriminate between the two (esp. in
> >> reference to implementing BASE).  The problem is that I have to create an
> >> alternative to a pgae (we're having a sort of contest to pick the best
> >> design) and I have to use BASE so that the relative links don't break.
> >> But if I do use BASE, the internal links break (the original document
> >> doesn't have the anchors I'm using.
> >> 
> >> cf.
> >> <URL:http://www.nyu.edu/pages/advocacy/>
> >> <URL:http://www.nyu.edu/pages/wsn/subir/canyu.html>
> >> 
> >> The first is the original doc and the second is my interpretation.
> >
> >  OK, after looking at those documents I understand what you mean.
> >You would like HREFs to "#f" (a fragment only) be resolved relative to
> >something else than HREFs to "b/c" (a path).  Looking at RFC 1808, which
> >spells out the rules for Relative URLs, there is no provision for that.
> >Both kinds of relative URLs get resolved relative to a "well-defined"
> >base URL, and there is no provision for establishing more than one
> >base URLs for the same document for different purposes.
> 
>       Gee!!!  I didn't understand what Subir was asking, nor figure
> it out from looking at those two documements, and I still don't
> understand it from this explanation.  Could somebody explain it again,
> perhaps with explicit HREFs and BASEs, and what the resolved URLs were
> hoped to be, but aren't with Lynx?

Well that must mean that my "explanation" failed... I'll better let
Subir explain himself what he meant and give examples, rather than risking
to add to misunderstandings.
 
>       Fragments are not part of the URL..  They're instructions
> to the client [...]

Yes, I noticed that RFC 1808 regarded fragments indentifiers as "not part
of the the URL".  I decided to not mention that complication...
The difference doesn't seem very relevant (in the context of _resolving_
relative URLs) anyway:  whether strictly "part of the URL" or not, the
RFC goes on to describe how they are inherited (or not, as in all normal
cases).  Also, parameters (the stuff after a ';') _are_ regarded as part
of the URL, but are not inherited from the base in most cases. 

  Klaus

;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;