[Doc-SIG] Call for opinions on "inline external targets" idea
Tony J Ibbs (Tibs)
Mon, 8 Jul 2002 11:26:28 +0100
I wondered out loud why one didn't just write ``http://....``.
Simon Budig wrote:
> Because this needs a complete specification of the server and the path
> and makes it necessary to edit a group of documents when you just want
> to move them to another location.
and Paul Moore wrote:
> Relocatability. I don't *think* there's a http:... syntax for a
> relative link. If there is, it's pretty obscure...
So I did a google search on "relative URL" and got to RFC 1808 - ah, I
see. The RFC doesn't say how one is aware one has a relative URL - that
is up to the embedding document (pretty obvious in HTML, of course). So
if I put ``http://`` I have already overspecified (since the base scheme
may not be, or may not only be, ``http``).
It just so happens that all of the occasions I've used this sort of
thing have been of the form ``http://../fred.html#thingy`` (and so on) -
i.e., not addressing the problem at all.
Not that that makes me any more eager to adopt the proposed solutions.
Tony J Ibbs (Tibs) http://www.tibsnjoan.co.uk/
Well we're safe now....thank God we're in a bowling alley.
- Big Bob (J.T. Walsh) in "Pleasantville"
My views! Mine! Mine! (Unless Laser-Scan ask nicely to borrow them.)