From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/8481
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "William M. Perry" <wmperry@aventail.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: bug?
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:01:00 -0700
Message-ID: <199610241601.JAA13753@newman.in.aventail.com>
References: <199610241135.NAA04888@grosse.mdstud.chalmers.se>
	<199610241401.HAA12575@newman.in.aventail.com>
	<vafbuds1mbh.fsf@ls6.informatik.uni-dortmund.de>
Reply-To: wmperry@aventail.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035148635 12371 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:17:15 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:17:15 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: wmperry@aventail.com, lars brinkhoff <md5lars@mdstud.chalmers.se>,
        ding@ifi.uio.no
Return-Path: <ding-request@ifi.uio.no>
Original-Received: (qmail 11843 invoked from smtpd); 24 Oct 1996 16:24:15 -0000
Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@129.240.64.2)
  by deanna.miranova.com with SMTP; 24 Oct 1996 16:24:14 -0000
Original-Received: from newman.in.aventail.com (root@newman.aventail.com [38.225.141.10]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <SAA08561@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 18:01:17 +0200
Original-Received: from wmperry.in.aventail.com.aventail.com (root@newman [192.168.1.1]) by newman.in.aventail.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA13753; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:01:00 -0700
Original-To: Kai Grossjohann <grossjohann@charly.informatik.uni-dortmund.de>
In-Reply-To: <vafbuds1mbh.fsf@ls6.informatik.uni-dortmund.de>
Errors-to: wmperry@aventail.com
X-Face: O~Rn;(l][/-o1sALg4A@xpE:9-"'IR[%;,,!m7</SYF`{vYQ(&RI1&EiH[FvT;J}@f!4kfz
 x_!Y#=y{Uuj9GvUi=cPuajQ(Z42R[wE@{G,sn$qGr5g/wnb*"*ktI+,CD}1Z'wxrM2ag-r0p5I6\nA
 [WJopW_J.WY;
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:8481
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:8481

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.