Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Andrew Dalke schrieb:
urlparse.urljoin("http://blah.com/", "..") 'http://blah.com/' urlparse.urljoin("http://blah.com/", "../") 'http://blah.com/../' urlparse.urljoin("http://blah.com/", "../..") 'http://blah.com/'
Does the result make sense to you? Does it make sense that the last of these is shorter than the middle one? It sure doesn't to me. I thought it was obvious that there was an error;
That wasn't obvious at all to me. Now looking at the examples, I agree there is an error. The middle one is incorrect;
urlparse.urljoin("http://blah.com/", "../")
should also give 'http://blah.com/'.
make that: could also give 'http://blah.com/'. as I said, today's urljoin doesn't guarantee that the output is the *shortest* possible way to represent the resulting URI. </F>