Re: bug?

["William M. Perry" <wmperry@aventail.com>]

Kai Grossjohann writes:
>>>>>> William M Perry writes:
>
>  Bill>   Yes, but not the one you probably think.  A real URL parser
>  Bill> would parse that as:
>
>  Bill> type: ftp		host: nil
>  Bill> user: nil		port: nil
>  Bill> pass: nil		file: does.this.look.like.an.url
>  Bill> targ: nil		attr: nil
>
>  Bill>   This is from the relative URL parsing RFC - cannot remember
>  Bill> the # off the top of my head.
>
>IIRC, relative URLs may not contain a type.  Therefore, the above URL
>is an absolute URL.  From the same relative URL RFC -- I cannot
>remember the number either.  Am I wrong?

  The relative URL RFC has the rules for determining whether a URL is
relative or not and also for the 'correct' way to split a full URL up so
that you can splice a full URL and a relative URL together.

  ftp:blah.blah _IS_ an absolute URL, but points to the _FILE_ blah.blah on
an undefined server on an undefined port.

-Bill P.