Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apache-docs-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 51367 invoked by uid 500); 9 Aug 2001 20:30:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact apache-docs-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: apache-docs@apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list apache-docs@apache.org Received: (qmail 51330 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2001 20:30:13 -0000 Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:30:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Joshua Slive X-X-Sender: To: Subject: Re: url-path In-Reply-To: <3B72EC98.F9D6D337@Golux.Com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > > > > According to the RFCs as I've read them, the URL path should > > be everything following the hostname/port (including the > > query string). > > H'm. I do not think so. IIRC, the URI is the complete bit, > but the *path* stops at either the path-info or the query-string, > non-inclusive. Hang on a sec.. Yes, see sections 3 and 3.3 of > RFC 2396, which clearly separates the path from the query. > Hmm, but if you look at RFC1738 (URLs), it says that the "path" is everything after the port number. (But then, when giving specific examples, tends to use path as not including the query string.) Ah well. I'll just tack a "(not including any query string)" on the end. The rest of the docs are pretty much all over the placed in referring to URI, URL, relative-URL, URL-path, etc. I guess we should just try to be more explicit when using these terms. Joshua. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: apache-docs-unsubscribe@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: apache-docs-help@apache.org