By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
449,312 Members | 1,761 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 449,312 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

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

P: n/a
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?
Jan 4 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
31 Replies


P: n/a
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 18:46:49 +0100, Yeah <ye**@positive.net> wrote:
Is it absolutely necessary to include "http://" in an A HREF hyperlink?
Only for http addresses:

<URL:http://www.w3.org/Addressing/URL/5_BNF.html>
Would it be wise to remove this from one's Links page, just to save code?


If you remove it, it is no longer a URL. That doesn't sound 'wise' to me.
--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
Jan 4 '06 #2

P: n/a
Yeah <ye**@positive.net> wrote:
Is it absolutely necessary to include "http://" in an A HREF hyperlink?
Yes.
Would it be wise to remove this from one's Links page, just to save code?


As an example, the link page at http://www.htmlhelp.com/links/ could use
href="http://www.example.com/" and the link would refer to
http://www.example.com/

But if the link page at http://www.htmlhelp.com/links/ used
href="www.example.com/" instead, then the link would refer to
http://www.htmlhelp.com/links/www.example.com/ which is not the same thing
at all.

See also http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/bas...l#relative-url
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark." - Steven Wright
Jan 4 '06 #3

P: n/a
Yeah wrote:
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?


If you don't include the protocol, then it is a relative link, so if you
have a page at http://example.com/foo/index.html and links with
href="www.example.net" and href="http://www.example.org" the links would be
to "http://www.example.com/foo/www.example.net" and
"http://www.example.org".

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
Jan 4 '06 #4

P: n/a
Yeah wrote:
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?


If you had

href="www.example.com/mypage.html"

on the page located at http://www.example.com/otherpage.html, following
the usual rules for interpreting relative URLs, the browser would
interpret it as

http://www.example.com/www.example.com/mypage.html

Jan 4 '06 #5

P: n/a

Yeah Wrote:
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?


It depends on where the link is going. If you are on the same URL then
you don't need it.

example
<a href="new.html"> this is within the same folder on the same URL
<a href="images/picture.jpg"> this is within the same URL in a
subfolder
<a href="../file.html"> this is within the same URL but in the folder
above

If the link is going to an outside URL or you have trouble with being
within a subfolder and accessing outside of it then yes you may need to
make an absolute URL for it to follow.

Saving code really depends on what is on the page (amount of links and
size) and SEO.
--
lunaticfringe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
lunaticfringe's Profile: http://2006.html.com/forums/member.php?userid=1049
View this thread: http://2006.html.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43517

1
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jan 4 '06 #6

P: n/a
Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> writes:
See also http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/bas...l#relative-url


I want to amplify Darin's reference, because this page includes the
important example href="./" that is too often neglected. If you have a
default file, using href="./" in place of href="index.html" and such
will mean consistent URLs instead of http://example.com/ and
http://example.com/index.html having the same content.

--

http://ourdoings.com/ Easily organize and disseminate news and
photos for your family or group.
Jan 4 '06 #7

P: n/a
Wed, 4 Jan 2006 11:46:49 -0600 from Yeah <ye**@positive.net>:
Is it absolutely necessary to include "http://" in an A HREF hyperlink?
No, of course not -- sometimes it's wrong to include that.
Would it be wise to remove this from one's Links page, just to save code?


No, that would be stupid.
But you're not asking the right question. The _right_ question is,
what's the path from the current page to the linked page? If both are
on the same server, you want a relative link; if not, you want an
absolute link. The absolute link always needs the protocol, news: or
http:// or whatever. The relative link never has the protocol or
server and, depending on details, will also omit some of the leading
"directory" names.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Jan 4 '06 #8

P: n/a
In article <nm*************@grumpy-fuzzball.mit.edu>,
Bruce Lewis <br*****@yahoo.com> wrote:
Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> writes:
See also http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/bas...l#relative-url


I want to amplify Darin's reference, because this page includes the
important example href="./" that is too often neglected. If you have a
default file, using href="./" in place of href="index.html" and such
will mean consistent URLs instead of http://example.com/ and
http://example.com/index.html having the same content.


I like that. So the idea is you could change all your references now to
an older style default file like href="index.htm" to href="./" Then
where you finally get around to making your default file "index.html"
(or "default.html" or whatever a newer default file name is) you don't
need to make a change to any of your HTML default page references?

Are there any disadvantages? Extra lookup time vs having the path
including the actual file name used?

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com
Jan 4 '06 #9

P: n/a
Yeah wrote:

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?


In addition to all the other answers about relative links, you
should recognize that not all links use the hyper-text transfer
protocol (HTTP). For example, a link to send E-mail to the
anti-spam address I used for this message would be
<a href="mail:no****@nowhere.not">Mail to me</a>

And a link to reach this newsgroup through your default news server
would be
<a href="news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html">Au thoring
HTML</a>
Specifying a particular news server would be
<a
href="news://news.vcnet.com/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html">Authoring
HTML</a>

Generally, when I refer to a page in my own Web site from another
page in the same site, I user relative links. This facilitates
both testing and rehosting.

For testing, links relative to my home page allow me to recreate my
Web site in a local directory on my PC. This means that I can
navigate through my site without even connecting to the Internet.
Thus, I can check the appearance of a page and the integrity of
links without having to upload the pages to a Web server.

If I want to rehost my Web site, none of my links require
changing. I only have to change text that cites the domain. Yes,
I now have a personal domain, which means that rehosting merely
requires pointing the domain to the new server and uploading the
files, even if my links used complete URLs. However, if I were to
change the name of my domain, relative links mean that I would not
have to change them.

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
into your E-mail? Use PGP.
See my <http://www.rossde.com/PGP/>
Jan 4 '06 #10

P: n/a
Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, David Ross
<no****@nowhere.not> spouted in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
<a href="mail:no****@nowhere.not">Mail to me</a>


I think you mean mailto: not mail:

With all the standard caveats (i.e. it may not work) of course.

--
Mark Parnell
================================================== ===
Att. Google Groups users - this is your last warning:
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/
Jan 4 '06 #11

P: n/a
On 04/01/2006 17:46, Yeah wrote:
Is it absolutely necessary to include "http://" in an A HREF hyperlink?
It depends what the destination is and the current base URI that any
relative URI might be resolved against.

If the link points to a site that uses a different scheme (https, ftp,
etc.) then an absolute URI is necessary. If the scheme is the same, then
you could use a network path reference. It's essentially an absolute URI
with the scheme removed.

From a document at

http://www.example.com/path/to/resource

the relative URI

//www.google.com/

would resolve to

http://www.google.com/
Would it be wise to remove this from one's Links page, just to save code?


Not really. It's only a few characters (five, in this case), so unless
there are thousands of such links, there's little return. If there were
thousands of links, time would be better spent recategorising them into
/much/ smaller lists.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.
Jan 5 '06 #12

P: n/a
David Ross <no****@nowhere.not> writes:
For example, a link to send E-mail to the
anti-spam address I used for this message would be
<a href="mail:no****@nowhere.not">Mail to me</a>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.invalid>

Sigh.

FWIW, my from address is valid and auto-trashed, my reply-to address is
a free webmail service that employs its own spamfilters and beyond any
messages > 20KiB get auto-trashed as well. In 2005 I found exactly 0
(zero) occurances of spam in that Inbox.

My primary addresses are mostly harvested on Windows machines of social
and business relations, not on the Web or even Usenet, so I see little
reason to harvest unregistered TLDs myself to play silly games. Be so
kind to think about that as well.
Specifying a particular news server would be
Undocumented?
For testing, links relative to my home page allow me to recreate my
Web site in a local directory on my PC. This means that I can
navigate through my site without even connecting to the Internet.


Setting up a local web server shouldn't take more than 15 minutes for a
first time attempt even on win98. Besides the benefits of a real test
environment, you cannot seriously want to include the DirectoryIndex
file names in your relative URI references?

Jan 5 '06 #13

P: n/a
Eric Lindsay>:
In article <nm*************@grumpy-fuzzball.mit.edu>,
Bruce Lewis <br*****@yahoo.com> wrote:
Darin McGrew <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> writes:

See also http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/bas...l#relative-url
I want to amplify Darin's reference, because this page includes the
important example href="./" that is too often neglected.


I like that. So the idea is you could change all your references now to
an older style default file like href="index.htm" to href="./" [...] Are there any disadvantages? Extra lookup time vs having the path
including the actual file name used?


Technically there would be a brief lookup time (probably in the
millisecond range) for the server to consult the configuration and
then look for a default file to serve. As opposed to serving a
directly referenced file (which still requires some configuration
decisions from the server).

Nothing to worry about. Though be sure to configure the server's
search order for the correct default file.

--
Rob McAninch
http://rock13.com
Jan 5 '06 #14

P: n/a
Rob McAninch <ro****@excite.com> writes:
Technically there would be a brief lookup time (probably in the
millisecond range) for the server to consult the configuration and
then look for a default file to serve. As opposed to serving a
directly referenced file (which still requires some configuration
decisions from the server).


I think this is a pessimistic view of how it would work. Only the very
worst web server implementations on very old hardware would require a
whole millisecond to do it.

More likely enough information would be cached in memory to make the
delay immeasurable.
Jan 5 '06 #15

P: n/a
> > In article <nm*************@grumpy-fuzzball.mit.edu>,
Bruce Lewis <br*****@yahoo.com> wrote:
I want to amplify Darin's reference, because this page includes the
important example href="./" that is too often neglected.
Eric Lindsay:
I like that. So the idea is you could change all your references now to
an older style default file like href="index.htm" to href="./" [...]

Yes, and this is a great time saving if you later have to migrate to
a different server such as an IIS one where the default is
"default.htm" or "default.html". On at least one such server, I found
"index.htm" didn't work.
Are there any disadvantages? Extra lookup time vs having the path
including the actual file name used?


No but there is one disadvantage on your end: if you have an image of
your site on your own computer, your browser won't know to serve up
the default file when it sees an HREF that ends in a "/". That makes
it harder to test all the links before uploading. (Mozilla shows a
file list in this situation.)

Fortunately, there's a way around that: the free Apache server
<http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi> is easy to install, and when
you have it running locally your browser connects to it
automatically. Since Apache is also the most popular server software
for "real" Web sites, this can be quite a good test of how your site
navigation will work when published.

Wed, 04 Jan 2006 21:55:08 -0500 from Rob McAninch <rob_13
@excite.com>: Technically there would be a brief lookup time (probably in the
millisecond range) for the server to consult the configuration and
then look for a default file to serve. As opposed to serving a
directly referenced file (which still requires some configuration
decisions from the server).


I doubt there would be even that, since the default file name would
most likely be held in RAM.

But we're in basic agreement: the performance penalty (if any) is
trivial, statistical "noise" compared to the time spent transmitting
the file.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Jan 5 '06 #16

P: n/a
Stan Brown wrote:
In article <nm*************@grumpy-fuzzball.mit.edu>,
Bruce Lewis <br*****@yahoo.com> wrote:

I want to amplify Darin's reference, because this page includes the
important example href="./" that is too often neglected.


Eric Lindsay:
I like that. So the idea is you could change all your references now to
an older style default file like href="index.htm" to href="./" [...]

Yes, and this is a great time saving if you later have to migrate to
a different server such as an IIS one where the default is
"default.htm" or "default.html". On at least one such server, I found
"index.htm" didn't work.


With IIS you can set the default document for a directory or for a whole
site to anything you want. Or you can declare several, and IIS looks for
each one until it finds one that actually exists in the requested directory.
Jan 5 '06 #17

P: n/a
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Harlan Messinger wrote:
With IIS you can set the default document for a directory or for a
whole site to anything you want. Or you can declare several, and IIS
looks for each one until it finds one that actually exists in the
requested directory.


What a pity, then, that so few of its users seem to have the wit to
make good use of that! I lost count of the number of IIS servers
which perform an external redirect of requests for the default
document (I mean URLs which end in something like "hierarchy/") to
something like "default.asp". Pretty-much all of the rest seemed to
respond unhelpfully with "directory listing denied". Crabby lot (or
is it me...?).
Jan 5 '06 #18

P: n/a
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Harlan Messinger wrote:

With IIS you can set the default document for a directory or for a
whole site to anything you want. Or you can declare several, and IIS
looks for each one until it finds one that actually exists in the
requested directory.

What a pity, then, that so few of its users seem to have the wit to
make good use of that! I lost count of the number of IIS servers
which perform an external redirect of requests for the default
document (I mean URLs which end in something like "hierarchy/") to
something like "default.asp". Pretty-much all of the rest seemed to
respond unhelpfully with "directory listing denied". Crabby lot (or
is it me...?).


On the other hand, IIS sends a redirect response when a directory is
requested without a trailing slash:

Client: give me http://www.example.com/xyz/abc
IIS: ask for http://www.example.com/xyz/abc/ instead.

When the client makes the new request, THEN the server will send the
default file in the abc subdirectory. Do other web servers do this?
Jan 5 '06 #19

P: n/a

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Harlan Messinger wrote:
On the other hand, IIS sends a redirect response when a directory is requested
without a trailing slash:

Client: give me http://www.example.com/xyz/abc
IIS: ask for http://www.example.com/xyz/abc/ instead.
I can't recall a web server which doesn't do that, by default.

Pedants (such as DJ Delorie, who at one time had an explicit
demonstration on his web site in order to "make a point") have
to go to extra trouble if they want to disable that behaviour.

Apache is perfectly capable of being configured to return two
different valid resources in response to the two distinct URLs
http://www.example.com/xyz/abc and http://www.example.com/xyz/abc/ ,
but you have to work at it, it isn't something that happens by
accident. The default behaviour is the one that you (and most other
people) expect.
When the client makes the new request, THEN the server will send the
default file in the abc subdirectory.


Maybe. It depends. I've seen IIS servers which then issue yet
another redirection to default.asp

In fact I recall a Microsoft server which, when asked for the
canonical URL (ending in "hierarchy/"), issued four successive
redirections before it finally got around to returning some content
with a 200 OK status. The final URL was distinctly unmemorable (and
different every time).
Jan 5 '06 #20

P: n/a
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@physics.gla.ac.uk> writes:
Apache is perfectly capable of being configured to return two
different valid resources in response to the two distinct URLs
http://www.example.com/xyz/abc and http://www.example.com/xyz/abc/ ,
but you have to work at it, it isn't something that happens by
accident. The default behaviour is the one that you (and most other
people) expect.


This was with Jetty, not Apache, but it happened by accident for me. On
ourdoings.com the URL parts that look like directories aren't. They are
looked up in a database. I had to write code to explicitly do the
redirect.

It's redirecting /favicon.ico to /favicon.ico/ at the moment. I'll have
to fix that some time.

--

http://ourdoings.com/ Easily organize and disseminate news and
photos for your family or group.
Jan 5 '06 #21

P: n/a
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Harlan Messinger wrote:

On the other hand, IIS sends a redirect response when a directory is requested
without a trailing slash:

Client: give me http://www.example.com/xyz/abc
IIS: ask for http://www.example.com/xyz/abc/ instead.

I can't recall a web server which doesn't do that, by default.


OK, so it isn't an IIS quirk. Why the inefficient approach?

Pedants (such as DJ Delorie, who at one time had an explicit
demonstration on his web site in order to "make a point") have
to go to extra trouble if they want to disable that behaviour.
You say it's pedantry--to me, it's avoiding a pointless round trip.
Isn't it? Why would it make sense to handle the appending of a slash by
telling the client to try again, while handling on the server,
transparently to the client, the translation of a directory request WITH
the slash into a request for the default document in that directory?
[snip]
When the client makes the new request, THEN the server will send the
default file in the abc subdirectory.


Maybe. It depends. I've seen IIS servers which then issue yet
another redirection to default.asp


At least that's consistent--handling both steps inefficiently.
Jan 5 '06 #22

P: n/a
On 05/01/2006 19:09, Harlan Messinger wrote:

[Redirecting to a canonical URI]
You say it's pedantry--to me, it's avoiding a pointless round trip.
Isn't it? Why would it make sense to handle the appending of a slash by
telling the client to try again [...]


Apache certainly think they have good reasons:

- The user is finally requesting the canonical URL of the
resource
- mod_autoindex works correctly. Since it doesn't emit the path
in the link, it would point to the wrong path.
- DirectoryIndex will be evaluated only for directories
requested with trailing slash.
- Relative URL references inside html pages will work
correctly.

-- DirectorySlash Directive, Apache Modules mod_dir[1]

Mike
[1] <http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/mod/mod_dir.html#directoryslash>

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.
Jan 5 '06 #23

P: n/a
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Harlan Messinger wrote:
OK, so it isn't an IIS quirk. Why the inefficient approach?
It isn't an "inefficient" approach, it's an error fixup. Short of
rejecting the URL as invalid, it's the least-cost fixup for the error.
Pedants (such as DJ Delorie, who at one time had an explicit
demonstration on his web site in order to "make a point") have to
go to extra trouble if they want to disable that behaviour.


You say it's pedantry--to me, it's avoiding a pointless round trip.


His page returned by the URL without the trailing slash was a tutorial
page explaining that the URL without the trailing slash didn't really
exist, requesting it was an error, and the proper thing to do if one
wanted the URL with the trailing slash was to *ask* for the URL with
the trailing slash, thus avoiding the need for the server to waste
resources issuing the redirection to correct the error.

"And so say all of us".
Why would it make sense to handle the appending of a slash by
telling the client to try again,


It's the only way to get back into synch for resolving relative URLs.
Jan 5 '06 #24

P: n/a
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Harlan Messinger wrote:

OK, so it isn't an IIS quirk. Why the inefficient approach?

It isn't an "inefficient" approach, it's an error fixup. Short of
rejecting the URL as invalid, it's the least-cost fixup for the error.
Pedants (such as DJ Delorie, who at one time had an explicit
demonstration on his web site in order to "make a point") have to
go to extra trouble if they want to disable that behaviour.


You say it's pedantry--to me, it's avoiding a pointless round trip.


His page returned by the URL without the trailing slash was a tutorial
page explaining that the URL without the trailing slash didn't really
exist, requesting it was an error, and the proper thing to do if one
wanted the URL with the trailing slash was to *ask* for the URL with
the trailing slash, thus avoiding the need for the server to waste
resources issuing the redirection to correct the error.

"And so say all of us".
Why would it make sense to handle the appending of a slash by
telling the client to try again,


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


I was wishing you'd explained this further, but I guess I just figured
it out. It's that the *client* doesn't know, when it sends a request
without a trailing slash, that the URL will resolve on the server to a
directory rather than to a document. 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?
Jan 5 '06 #25

P: n/a
Thu, 05 Jan 2006 11:39:27 -0500 from Harlan Messinger
<hm*******************@comcast.net>:
Stan Brown wrote:
In article <nm*************@grumpy-fuzzball.mit.edu>,
Bruce Lewis <br*****@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I want to amplify Darin's reference, because this page includes the
>important example href="./" that is too often neglected.


Eric Lindsay:

I like that. So the idea is you could change all your references now to
an older style default file like href="index.htm" to href="./" [...]

Yes, and this is a great time saving if you later have to migrate to
a different server such as an IIS one where the default is
"default.htm" or "default.html". On at least one such server, I found
"index.htm" didn't work.


With IIS you can set the default document for a directory or for a whole
site to anything you want.


Yes, if you have the privilege to do so -- which I didn't. And the
fellow who did have privilege was unwilling to tweak any settings
because he didn't understand IIS. (Given that it's Microsoft
software, I sympathized.) So I set my _local_ Apache to find only
"default.htm", and then I could test what the IIS server would do
before I uploaded files to it.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Jan 5 '06 #26

P: n/a
Thu, 05 Jan 2006 12:08:38 -0500 from Harlan Messinger
<hm*******************@comcast.net>:
On the other hand, IIS sends a redirect response when a directory is
requested without a trailing slash:

When the client makes the new request, THEN the server will send the
default file in the abc subdirectory. Do other web servers do this?


Apache does. Perhaps a better question is, is there Web server that
_doesn't_? :-)

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Jan 5 '06 #27

P: n/a
Mark Parnell wrote:

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, David Ross
<no****@nowhere.not> spouted in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
<a href="mail:no****@nowhere.not">Mail to me</a>


I think you mean mailto: not mail:

With all the standard caveats (i.e. it may not work) of course.


Of course!

I was once told that we are each allowed to make one mistake per
day. This one brings me up to 14 July 1996. :) (My wife would
say it brings me to 23 October 2019.)

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
into your E-mail? Use PGP.
See my <http://www.rossde.com/PGP/>
Jan 6 '06 #28

P: n/a
"Eric B. Bednarz" wrote [in part]:

I previously wrote [also in part]:
Specifying a particular news server would be


Undocumented?


Where a proprietary newsgroup (e.g., hosted on only one server and
not propagated across the NNTP universe), indicating the server not
only works but is also ver useful to anyone who does already
subscribe to that server.
For testing, links relative to my home page allow me to recreate my
Web site in a local directory on my PC. This means that I can
navigate through my site without even connecting to the Internet.


Setting up a local web server shouldn't take more than 15 minutes for a
first time attempt even on win98. Besides the benefits of a real test
environment, you cannot seriously want to include the DirectoryIndex
file names in your relative URI references?


I'm not sure what you mean by "the DirectoryIndex file names". If
you look at the source of any of my pages (e.g., my site map at
<http://www.rossde.com/sitemap.html>), you will see that all my
pages reference each other relatively. Thus, from the source of my
site map, you will see that my main PGP page (cited in my signature
below) is at <PGP/index.html>. On both my PC and my ISP's Web
server, there is a directory (folder) named PGP under my domain
root. Thus, if you are at <http://www.rossde.com/>, the main PGP
page is at <PGP/index.html>. Compare this with the link for that
same page in my signature.

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
into your E-mail? Use PGP.
See my <http://www.rossde.com/PGP/>
Jan 6 '06 #29

P: n/a
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.

Navigating around the URL hierarchy is something that happens *in that
abstract URL hierarchy*. As soon as one gets confused and starts
trying to use it to navigate around the server's file system, things
are likely start falling apart. *First* resolve relative references
*in the URL hierarchy space*, and only *then* go mapping the resulting
absolute URL references into the server's resource space (file system,
CGI scripts, database lookups, whatever the server uses). Can't
emphasise that too strongly.

cheers
Jan 6 '06 #30

P: n/a
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.
Jan 10 '06 #31

P: n/a
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 "hierarchical
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 "hierarchical 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...
Jan 10 '06 #32

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.