Does <A HREF hyperlink require "http://..."?

[Yeah]

Is it absolutely necessary to include "http://" in an A HREF hyperlink?
Would it be wise to remove this from one's Links page, just to save code?

[Harlan Messinger]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Harlan Messinger wrote, quoting me:

It's the only way to get back into synch for resolving relative
URLs.

[..]

So, for example, if the request was for

http://www.example.com/xyz/abc

and a document were returned, the client would think the document
was abc in the directory xyz rather than some anonymous default
document in directory xyz/abc. If the user activated a link in this
document defined by the tag <a href="123.html" >, the client would
send a request for

http://www.example.com/xyz/123.html

when the link was intended to lead to

http://www.example.com/xyz/abc/123.html

Is that it?

You've got it!

But try to stand clear of the term "directory" in URLs. In a sense,
the URL hierarchy does define some kind of abstract file system "in
URL space", but just exactly how that abstract file system maps to a
real file system inside the server is entirely a private concern of
the server and its configuration. It might be anything from a
straight URL-to-filesystem mapping, to a relational database lookup
with no real "file system" structure involved at all.

Understood. (I expect that that's the motivation behind the use of the
term "channel" in content management system terminology.) Still, the
clearly hierarchical notation screams for a term to refer to the
terminal and non-terminal levels in a particular hierarchy. What terms
ought to be used for these? I've been using "resource" for the terminal
(or "leaf") level, but still want there to be a name for the
non-terminal (or "branch") level.

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, Harlan Messinger wrote, quoting me:

But try to stand clear of the term "directory" in URLs. In a
sense, the URL hierarchy does define some kind of abstract file
system "in URL space", but just exactly how that abstract file
system maps to a real file system inside the server is entirely a
private concern of the server

[...]
Still, the clearly hierarchical notation screams for a term to refer
to the terminal and non-terminal levels in a particular hierarchy.
Understood, but I'm not sure there's an easy answer to that. We'd
best take a look at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt for
inspiration...

In section 1.2.3 it refers to "components " when the context is
otherwise clear; or variously to "URI components" or "hierarchic al
components" depending on what emphasis is intended.

In the syntax specs, see e.g section 3.3, it also refers to the
hierarchical components as "path segments", although that is focussing
more on their syntactic structure than on the hierarchical role that
they play.
I've been using "resource" for the terminal (or "leaf") level, but
still want there to be a name for the non-terminal (or "branch")
level.

I suspect that the closest in meaning to what you had in mind when you
wanted to say "directory" was "hierarchic al component", but it's quite
a mouthful to use in practice. "Path" (for that whole portion of the
syntax) or "path segment" (for each component of it) may be snappier
terms if the reader otherwise understands how they fit into the
picture.

best I can suggest at this time of night, sorry...