view Side-By-Side changes
Relative Uniform Resource Locators
<draft-ietf-uri-relative-url-02.txt>
<draft-ietf-uri-relative-url-03.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as
``work in progress.''
To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check
the ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-
Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa),
nic.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim),
ds.internic.net (US East Coast),
nic.nordu.net (Europe), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast), or
munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim). Coast).
Distribution of this document is unlimited. Please send comments
to the author, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@ics.uci.edu>, or to the
URI working group (URI-WG) of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF) at <uri@bunyip.com>. Discussions of the group are archived at
<URL:http://www.acl.lanl.gov/URI/archive/uri-archive.index.html>.
Abstract
A Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) are Locator (URL) is a compact representation of the
location and access method for a resource available via the Internet.
When embedded within a base document, a URL in its absolute form may
contain a great deal of information which is already known from the
context of that base document's retrieval, including the access scheme,
network location, and parts of the url-path. In situations where the
base URL is well-defined and known to the parser (human or machine),
it is useful to be able to embed URL references which inherit that
context rather than re-specifying it in every instance. This
document defines the syntax and semantics for such Relative Uniform
Resource Locators.
1. Introduction
This work is derived from concepts introduced by the World-Wide Web
global information initiative, whose use of such objects dates from
1990 and is described in "Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW",
RFC 1630 [1]. [3]. This document is a companion to the Internet-Draft RFC 1738,
"Uniform Resource Locators (URL)" [2], [4], which specifies the
syntax and semantics of absolute URLs. A URL is "absolute" if it
can be interpreted consistently and unambiguously, with global scope,
independent of any other URL.
This document describes the syntax and semantics for "relative"
Uniform Resource Locators (relative URLs): a compact representation
of the location and access method for of a resource available via the
Internet relative to an absolute base URL.
The name space syntax of relative URLs is a superset subset of that defined in [2] for
Uniform Resource Locators, in that all absolute URLs can be interpreted
consistently relative to any Internet-accessible resource. For the
sake of clarity, however, this document will only term "relative"
those URLs which obtain global scope only when interpreted relative
to a separate base URL. Locators.
A common use for Uniform Resource Locators is to embed them within
a document (referred to as the "base" document) for the purpose of
identifying other Internet-accessible resources. For example, in
hypertext documents, URLs can be used as the identifiers for
hypertext link destinations.
Absolute URLs contain a great deal of information which may already
be known from the context of the base document's retrieval,
including the access scheme, network location, and parts of the URL path.
In situations where the base URL is well-defined and known, it is
useful to be able to embed a URL reference which inherits that
context rather than re-specifying it within each instance.
Similarly, relative URLs can be used within data-entry dialogs to
decrease the number of characters necessary to describe a location.
It is often the case that a group or "tree" of documents has been
constructed to serve a common purpose; the vast majority of URLs
within these documents point to locations within the tree rather
than outside of it. Similarly, documents located at a particular
Internet site are much more likely to refer to other resources at
that site than to resources at remote sites.
Relative addressing of URLs allows document trees to be partially
independent of their location and/or and access scheme. For instance,
if they refer to each other using relative URLs, it is possible for
a single set of documents to be simultaneously accessible and, if
hypertext, traversable via each of the "file", "http", and "ftp"
access
schemes. Furthermore, document trees can be moved, as a whole,
without changing any of the embedded URLs. Experience within the
World-Wide Web has demonstrated that the ability to perform relative
referencing is necessary for the long-term usability of embedded
URLs.
2. Relative URL Syntax
The syntax for relative URLs is the same as a subset of that for absolute
URLs
[2], with the exception [4]. Relative URLs are distinct in that portions some prefix of the URL may be missing,
is missing and certain path components ("." and "..") have a special
meaning when interpreting a relative URL path. Because a relative URL
may appear in any context that could hold an absolute URL, systems
that support relative URLs must be able to recognize them as part
of the URL parsing process.
Although this document does not seek to define the overall URL
syntax, some discussion of it is necessary in order to describe the
parsing of relative URLs. In particular, base documents can only
make use of relative URLs when their base URL fits within the generic
syntax described below. Although some URL schemes do not require
this generic syntax, it is assumed that any document which contains
a relative reference does have a base URL that obeys the syntax.
In other words, relative URLs cannot be used within documents that
have abnormal base URLs.
2.1. URL Syntactic Components
Like absolute URLs, relative
The URL syntax is dependent upon the access scheme. Some schemes use
reserved characters like "?" and ";" to indicate special reserved components,
while others just consider them to be part of the path. However,
there is enough uniformity in the syntax use of URLs to allow a parser
to resolve relative URLs based upon a few syntactic categories.
These categories are described in Section 2.3.
In general, the relative URL single, generic syntax.
This generic syntax consists of six components:
<scheme>://<net_loc>/<path>;<params>?<query>#<fragment>
each of which which, except <scheme>, may be absent or may be disallowed by from a particular
scheme. They URL.
These components are defined as follows (a complete BNF is provided
in Section 2.2):
scheme ":" ::= access scheme name, as per Section 2.1 of [2]. [4].
"//" net_loc ::= network location and login information, as per
Section 3.1 of [2]. [4].
"/" path ::= URL path, as per Section 3.1 of [2]. [4].
";" params ::= object parameters (e.g. ";type=a" as in
Section 3.2.2 of [2]). [4]).
"?" query ::= query information, as per Section 3.3 of [2]. [4].
"#" fragment ::= fragment identifier (currently only used within
the World-Wide Web initiative). identifier.
The order of the components is important. If both <params> and
<query> are present, the <query> information must occur after the
<params>. Relative components are resolved from left-to-right,
according to the rules given in Section 4.
2.2. BNF for
2.2. BNF for Relative URLs
This is a BNF-like description of the Relative Uniform Resource
Locator syntax, using the conventions of RFC 822 [7], except that
"|" is used to designate alternatives, and brackets "[]" are used
around optional or repeated elements. alternatives. Briefly, literals are quoted
with "", parentheses "(" and ")" are used to group elements, optional
elements are enclosed in [brackets], and elements may be preceded
with <n>* to designate n or more repetitions of the following
element; n defaults to 0.
Because relative URLs are parsed within the context of the base URL,
this BNF is not sufficient to completely specify the allowed syntax
within any given context. Section 2.4 describes a context-sensitive
parsing algorithm which disambiguates the grammar.
relativeURL
URL = [ ( absoluteURL | location | abs_path | rel_path ] relativeURL ) [ "#" fragment ]
absoluteURL = scheme ":" *[ *( uchar | reserved ]
location )
relativeURL = net_path | abs_path | rel_path
net_path = "//" net_loc [ "/" rel_path abs_path ]
abs_path = "/" rel_path
rel_path = [ path ] [ ";" params ] [ "?" query ]
path = segment *[ fsegment *( "/" segment ] )
fsegment = 1*pchar
segment = *[ pchar | ";" ] *pchar
params = param *[ *( ";" param ] )
param = *[ *( pchar | "/" ] )
scheme = 1*[ 1*( alpha | digit | "+" | "-" | "." ] )
net_loc = *[ *( pchar | ";" ] | "?" )
query = *[ *( uchar | reserved ] )
fragment = *[ *( uchar | reserved ] )
pchar = [ uchar | "?" | ":" | "@" | "&" | "=" ]
uchar = unreserved | escape
unreserved = alpha | digit | safe | extra | national
escape = "%" hex hex
hex = digit | "A" | "B" | "C" | "D" | "E" | "F" |
"a" | "b" | "c" | "d" | "e" | "f"
alpha = lowalpha | hialpha
lowalpha = "a" | "b" | "c" | "d" | "e" | "f" | "g" | "h" | "i" |
"j" | "k" | "l" | "m" | "n" | "o" | "p" | "q" | "r" |
"s" | "t" | "u" | "v" | "w" | "x" | "y" | "z"
hialpha = "A" | "B" | "C" | "D" | "E" | "F" | "G" | "H" | "I" |
"J" | "K" | "L" | "M" | "N" | "O" | "P" | "Q" | "R" |
"S" | "T" | "U" | "V" | "W" | "X" | "Y" | "Z"
digit = "0" | "1" | "2" | "3" | "4" | "5" | "6" | "7" |
"8" | "9"
safe = "$" | "-" | "_" | "." | "+"
extra = "!" | "*" | "'" | "(" | ")" | ","
national = "{" | "}" | "|" | "\" | "^" | "~" | "[" | "]" | "`"
reserved = ";" | "/" | "?" | ":" | "@" | "&" | "="
punctuation = "<" | ">" | "#" | "%" | <">
2.3. Specific Schemes and their Syntactic Categories
Each URL access scheme has its own rules regarding the presence or absence
of the syntactic components described in Section 2.1 and 2.2.
However, there is enough commonality among the
In addition, some schemes to be able
to group them into just a few categories. These categories are
sufficiently general to allow new schemes to be added without
substantial changes to the algorithm never appropriate for resolving use with relative
URLs. However, since relative URLs will only be used within contexts
in which they are useful, these scheme-specific differences can be
ignored by the resolution process.
Within this section, we include as examples only those schemes
which that
have a defined URL syntax in [2]. This includes:
ftp File Transfer Protocol [3]
http Hypertext Transfer [4]. The following schemes are never
used with relative URLs:
mailto Electronic Mail [7]
telnet TELNET Protocol [4] for Interactive Sessions [13]
Some URL schemes allow the use of reserved characters for purposes
outside the generic grammar given above. However, such use is rare.
Relative URLs can be used with these schemes whenever the applicable
base URL is restricted to the generic syntax.
gopher Gopher and Gopher+ Protocols [5, 6]
mailto Electronic Mail [7] [1, 2]
news USENET news [8] [9]
nntp USENET news using NNTP access [9]
telnet TELNET Protocol for Interactive Sessions [10]
prospero Prospero Directory Service [12]
wais Wide Area Information Servers Protocol [11,12] [8,15]
Finally, the following schemes can always be parsed using the generic
syntax.
file Host-specific Files
prospero Prospero Directory Service [13]
ftp File Transfer Protocol [14]
http Hypertext Transfer Protocol [6]
It is recommended that new schemes include a description of their
membership in be designed to be parsable via
the following categories when generic syntax if they are registered,
as per Section 4 of [2]. Membership in the five categories is
described in terms of named sets: Uses-Netloc, Non-Hierarchical,
Uses-Params, Uses-Query, and Uses-Fragment.
2.3.1 The Uses-Netloc Set
The Uses-Netloc set includes those access schemes which use the
Common Internet Scheme Syntax described in Section 3.1 of [2], where
the network location and/or login information starts with a
double-slash "//" to indicate its presence, and continues until the
following slash "/", if any.
Uses-Netloc = {ftp, http, gopher, nntp, telnet, wais,
file, prospero}
2.3.2 The Non-Hierarchical Set
The Non-Hierarchical set includes those access schemes which do not
use "/" intended to indicate hierarchical segments in the URL path.
Non-Hierarchical = {gopher, wais, mailto, news, telnet, prospero}
When resolving be used with relative paths for schemes not in the Non-Hierarchical
set, the complete path segments ".." and "." have a significance
reserved for representing the path hierarchy, indicating up-one-level
and current-level, respectively.
2.3.3 The Uses-Params Set
The Uses-Params set includes those access schemes which allow the
semicolon ";" character to separate object parameters from
URLs. A description of the
URL path. There may allowed relative forms should be more than one parameter, each being
separated by a semicolon ";".
Uses-Params = {ftp, http, prospero}
2.3.4 The Uses-Query Set
The Uses-Query set includes those access schemes which allow the
question mark "?" character to separate query information from the
URL path.
Uses-Query = {http, wais}
2.3.5 The Uses-Fragment Set
The Uses-Fragment set includes those access schemes which allow the
crosshatch "#" character to separate included
when a fragment identifier from
the rest of the URL. Within systems that use fragment identifiers,
Uses-Fragment = {ftp, http, gopher, news, nntp, wais,
file, prospero}
Unlike the other sets, however, the fragment identifier is only
reserved within systems which use it. Outside of those systems,
Uses-Fragment new scheme is equal to the empty set.
2.3.6. Summary of Categories by Scheme
Uses- Non-Hier Uses- Uses- Uses-
Netloc archical Params Query Fragment
.--------------------------------------------.
ftp | XXXX | | XXXX | | XXXX |
http | XXXX | | XXXX | XXXX | XXXX |
gopher | XXXX | XXXX | | | XXXX |
mailto | | XXXX | | | |
news | | XXXX | | | XXXX |
nntp | XXXX | | | | XXXX |
telnet | XXXX | XXXX | | | |
wais | XXXX | XXXX | | XXXX | XXXX |
file | XXXX | | | | XXXX |
prospero | XXXX | XXXX | XXXX | | XXXX |
`--------------------------------------------' registered, as per Section 4 of [4].
2.4. Parsing a URL
An accepted method for parsing URLs is necessary to disambiguate the
relative
generic URL syntax of Section 2.2 and to describe the algorithm for
resolving relative URLs presented in Section 4. This section
describes the parsing rules for breaking down a URL (relative or
absolute) into the component parts described in Section 2.1. The
rules assume that the URL has already been separated from any
surrounding text and copied to a "parse string". The rules are
listed in the order in which they must would be applied by the parser.
2.4.1. Parsing the Scheme
If the parse string contains a colon ":" after the first character
and before any characters not allowed as part of a scheme name
(i.e. any not an alphanumeric, plus "+", period ".", or hyphen "-"),
the scheme of the URL is the substring of characters up to but not
including the first colon. These characters and the colon are then
removed from the parse string before continuing.
2.4.2. Parsing the Fragment Identifier
If the scheme is not a member of the Uses-Fragment set, this section
is skipped.
If the parse string contains a crosshatch "#" character, then the
substring after the last (right-most) first (left-most) crosshatch "#" and up to the
end of the parse string is the fragment <fragment> identifier. If the
crosshatch is the last character, or no crosshatch is present, then
the fragment identifier is empty. The matched substring, including
the crosshatch character, is removed from the parse string before
continuing.
Note that the fragment identifier is not considered part of the URL.
However, since it is often attached to the URL, parsers must be able
to recognize and set aside fragment identifiers as part of the
process.
2.4.3.
2.4.2. Parsing the Network Location/Login Scheme
If the scheme is parse string contains a colon ":" after the first character
and before any characters not allowed as part of a member scheme name
(i.e. any not an alphanumeric, plus "+", period ".", or hyphen "-"),
the <scheme> of the Uses-Netloc set, this section URL is skipped. the substring of characters up to but not
including the first colon. These characters and the colon are then
removed from the parse string before continuing.
2.4.3. Parsing the Network Location/Login
If the parse string begins with a double-slash "//", then the
substring of characters after the double-slash and up to, but not
including, the next slash "/" character is the network location/login
(<net_loc>) of the URL. If no trailing slash "/" is present, the
entire remaining parse string is assigned to <net_loc>. The
double-slash and <net_loc> are removed from the parse string before
continuing.
2.4.4. Parsing the Query Information
If the scheme is not a member of the Uses-Query set, this section
is skipped.
If the parse string contains a question mark "?" character, then the
substring after the first (left-most) question mark "?" and up to the
end of the parse string is the query <query> information. If the question
mark is the last character, or no question mark is present, then the
query information is empty. The matched substring, including the
question mark character, is removed from the parse string before
continuing.
2.4.5. Parsing the Parameters
If the scheme is not a member of the Uses-Params set, this section
is skipped.
If the parse string contains a semicolon ";" character, then the
substring after the first (left-most) semicolon ";" and up to the
end of the parse string is the parameters (<params>). If the
semicolon is the last character, or no semicolon is present, then
<params> is empty. The matched substring, including the semicolon
character, is removed from the parse string before continuing.
2.4.6. Parsing the Path
After the above steps, all that is left of the parse string is
the URL path <path> and the slash "/" that may precede it. Even though
the initial slash is not part of the URL path, the parser must
remember whether or not it was present so that later processes
can differentiate between relative and absolute paths. Often this
is done by simply storing the preceding slash along with the path.
3. Establishing a Base URL
In order for relative URLs to be usable within a base document,
the absolute "base URL" of that document must be known to the
parser. There are three methods for obtaining the base URL of
a document, listed here in order of precedence.
3.1. Base URL within Document Content
Within certain document content-types, media types, the base URL of the document
can be embedded within the content itself such that it can be
readily obtained by a parser. This can be useful for descriptive
documents, such as tables of content, which may be transmitted to
others through schemes which do not support relative addressing protocols other than their usual retrieval context
(e.g. E-Mail or USENET news).
It is beyond the scope of this document to specify how, for each
content-type,
media type, the base URL can be embedded. However, an example of
how this is done for the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) [14] [5] is
provided in an Appendix (Section 10).
3.2. Base URL within Message Headers
For access schemes which make use of message headers like those described
in RFC 822 [7], a second method for identifying the base URL of a
document is to include that URL in the message headers. It is
recommended that the format of this header be:
Base-URL: "<" absoluteURL ">"
where "Base-URL" is case-insensitive. For example,
Base-URL: http://www.ics.uci.edu/Test/a/b/c <http://www.ics.uci.edu/Test/a/b/c>
would indicate that any relative URLs found within the document
should be parsed relative to <URL:http://www.ics.uci.edu/Test/a/b/c>.
Any whitespace (including that used for line folding) inside the
angle brackets should be ignored.
In situations where both an embedded base URL (as described in
Section 3.1) and a "Base-URL" message header are present, the
embedded base URL takes precedence.
3.3. Base URL from the Retrieval Context
If neither an embedded base URL nor a "Base-URL" message header
is present, then, if a URL was used to retrieve the base document,
that URL shall be considered the base URL. Note that if the
retrieval was the result of a redirected request, the last URL used
(i.e., that which resulted in the actual retrieval of the document)
is the base URL.
3.4. Default Base URL
If none of the conditions described in Sections 3.1 -- 3.3 apply,
then the base URL is considered to be the empty string and all
embedded URLs within that document shall be interpreted as absolute.
It is the responsibility of the distributor(s) of a document
containing relative URLs to ensure that the base URL for that
document can be established. It must be emphasized that relative
URLs cannot be used reliably in situations where the object's base
URL is not well-defined.
4. Resolving Relative URLs
This section describes an example algorithm for resolving URLs
within a context in which the URLs may be relative, such that the
result is always a URL in absolute form. Although this algorithm
cannot guarantee that the resulting URL will equal that intended
by the original author, it does guarantee that any valid URL
(relative or absolute) can be consistently transformed to an
absolute form given a valid base URL.
The following steps are performed in order:
Step 1: The base URL is established according to the rules of
Section 3.
Step 2: If the base URL is the empty string (unknown),
the embedded URL is interpreted as an absolute URL and
we are done.
Step 3: 2: Both the base and embedded URLs are parsed into their
component parts as described in Section 2.4.
a) If the embedded URL is entirely empty, it inherits the
entire base URL (i.e. is set equal to the base URL)
and we are done.
b) If the embedded URL starts with a scheme name, it is
interpreted as an absolute URL and we are done.
b)
c) Otherwise, the embedded URL inherits the scheme of
the base URL.
Step 4: If the scheme is a member of the Uses-Netloc set
(Section 2.3.1), then
a) base URL.
Step 3: If the embedded URL's <net_loc> is non-empty, we skip to
Step 8.
b) 7. Otherwise, the embedded URL inherits the <net_loc>
(if any) of the base URL.
Step 5: 4: If the embedded URL path is preceded by a slash "/", the
path is not relative and we skip to Step 8. 7.
Step 6: 5: If the embedded URL path is empty (and not preceded by a
slash), then
a) The the embedded URL inherits the base URL path; and,
b) If path,
and
a) if the embedded URL's <params> is empty, non-empty, we skip to
step 7; otherwise, it inherits the <params> of the base
URL (if any); and,
c) If any) and
b) if the embedded URL's <query> is empty, non-empty, we skip to
step 7; otherwise, it inherits the <query> of the base
URL (if any); and,
d) We any) and we skip to step 7.
Step 8.
Step 7: 6: The last path segment of the base URL's path (anything
following the rightmost slash "/", or the entire path if no
slash is present) is removed and the embedded URL's path is
appended in its place. The following operations are
then applied, in order, to the new URL path:
a) All occurrences of "./", where "." is a complete path
segment, are removed.
b) If the URL path ends with "." as a complete path segment,
that "." is removed.
c) All occurrences of "<segment>/../", where <segment> and
".." are complete path segments, are removed. Removal of
these path segments is performed iteratively, removing the
leftmost matching pattern on each iteration, until no
matching pattern remains.
d) If the URL path ends with "<segment>/..", that "<segment>/.."
is removed.
Step 8: 7: The resulting URL components, including any inherited from
the base URL, are recombined to give the absolute form of
the embedded URL.
Parameters, regardless of their purpose, do not form a part of the
URL path and thus have no effect on the resolving of relative paths.
In particular, the presence or absence of the ";type=d" parameter
on an ftp URL has no effect on the interpretation of paths relative
to that URL. Fragment identifiers are never only inherited from the base URL.
URL when the entire embedded URL is empty.
5. Examples and Recommended Practice
Within an object with a well-defined base URL of
<URL:http://a/b/c/d>
<URL:http://a/b/c/d;p?q#f>
the relative URLs would be resolved as follows:
5.1. Normal Examples
g:h = <URL:g:h>
g = <URL:http://a/b/c/g>
./g = <URL:http://a/b/c/g>
g/ = <URL:http://a/b/c/g/>
/g = <URL:http://a/g>
//g = <URL:http://g>
?y = <URL:http://a/b/c/d?y> <URL:http://a/b/c/d;p?y>
g?y = <URL:http://a/b/c/g?y>
g?y/./x = <URL:http://a/b/c/g?y/./x>
#s = <URL:http://a/b/c/d;p?q#s>
g#s = <URL:http://a/b/c/g#s>
g#s/./x = <URL:http://a/b/c/g#s/./x>
g?y#s = <URL:http://a/b/c/g?y#s>
;x = <URL:http://a/b/c/d;x>
g;x = <URL:http://a/b/c/g;x>
g;x?y#s = <URL:http://a/b/c/g;x?y#s>
. = <URL:http://a/b/c/>
./ = <URL:http://a/b/c/>
.. = <URL:http://a/b/>
../ = <URL:http://a/b/>
../g = <URL:http://a/b/g>
../.. = <URL:http://a/>
../../ = <URL:http://a/>
../../g = <URL:http://a/g>
5.2. Abnormal Examples
<> = <URL:http://a/b/c/d;p?q#f> [an empty reference]
../../../g = <URL:http://a/../g>
./../g = <URL:http://a/b/g>
./g/. = <URL:http://a/b/c/g/>
/./g = <URL:http://a/./g>
g/./h = <URL:http://a/b/c/g/h>
g/../h = <URL:http://a/b/c/h>
g. = <URL:http://a/b/c/g.>
.g = <URL:http://a/b/c/.g>
g.. = <URL:http://a/b/c/g..>
..g = <URL:http://a/b/c/..g>
http:g = <URL:http:g>
http: = <URL:http:>
Note that, although the abnormal examples are not likely to occur
for a normal relative URL, all URL parsers should be capable of
resolving them consistently.
5.3. Recommended Practice
Authors should be aware that path names which contain a colon
":" character cannot be used as the first component of a relative
URL path (e.g. "this:that") because they will likely be mistaken for
a scheme name. It is therefore necessary to precede such cases with
other components (e.g., "./this:that"), or to escape the colon
character (e.g., "this%3Athat"), in order for them to be correctly
parsed. The former solution is preferred because it has no effect
on the absolute form of the URL.
There is an ambiguity in the semantics for the ftp URL scheme
regarding the use of a trailing slash ("/") character and/or a
parameter ";type=d" to indicate a resource that is an ftp directory.
If the result of retrieving that directory includes embedded
relative URLs, it is necessary that the base URL path for that result
include a trailing slash. For this reason, it is recommended that
the ";type=d" parameter value not be used.
6. Security Considerations
None.
There are no security considerations in the use or parsing of relative
URLs. However, once a relative URL has been resolved to its absolute
form, the same security considerations apply as those described in
RFC 1738 [4].
7. Acknowledgements
This work is derived from concepts introduced by Tim Berners-Lee and
the World-Wide Web global information initiative. Relative URLs are
described as "Partial URLs" in RFC 1630 [1]. [3]. That description was
expanded for inclusion as an appendix for the Internet-Draft an early draft of RFC 1738,
"Uniform Resource Locators (URL)" [2]. [4]. However, after further
discussion, the URI-WG decided to specify Relative URLs separately
from the primary URL draft.
This document is intended to fulfill the requirements for Internet
Resource Locators as stated in [15]. [11]. It has benefited greatly from
the comments of all those participating in the URI-WG. Particular
thanks go to Larry Masinter, Michael A. Dolan, Guido van Rossum, and
Dave Kristol for identifying problems/deficiencies in earlier drafts.
8. References
[1] Berners-Lee, T., "Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW:
A Unifying Syntax for the Expression of Names and Addresses of
Objects on the Network as used in the World-Wide Web", RFC 1630,
<URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1630.txt>, June 1994.
[2] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., and McCahill, M., Editors,
"Uniform Resource Locators (URL)", Internet-Draft (work in
progress), <URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-uri-url-08.txt>, October 1994.
[3] Postel, J. and Reynolds, J.K., "File Transfer Protocol (FTP)",
STD 9, RFC 959, <URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc959.txt>,
October 1985.
[4] Berners-Lee, T ., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)" ,
CERN, <URL:ftp://info.cern.ch/pub/www/doc/http-spec.txt.Z>,
November 1993.
[5] F. Anklesaria, F., M. McCahill, M., P. Lindner, P., D. Johnson, D.,
D. Torrey, D., and B. Alberti, B., "The Internet Gopher Protocol:
A distributed document search and retrieval protocol",
RFC 1436, <URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1436.txt>, University of Minnesota, March 1993.
[6]
<URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1436.txt>
[2] F. Anklesaria, F., P. Lindner, P., M. McCahill, M., D. Torrey, D.,
D. Johnson, D., and B. Alberti, B., "Gopher+: Upward compatible
enhancements to the Internet Gopher protocol", University of
Minnesota, July 1993. <URL:ftp://boombox.micro.umn.edu
/pub/gopher/gopher_protocol/Gopher+/Gopher+.txt>, July 1993.
[3] T. Berners-Lee, "Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW:
A Unifying Syntax for the Expression of Names and Addresses of
Objects on the Network as used in the World-Wide Web", RFC 1630,
CERN, June 1994. <URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1630.txt>
[4] T. Berners-Lee, L. Masinter, and M. McCahill, Editors,
"Uniform Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, CERN,
Xerox Corporation, University of Minnesota, December 1994.
<URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1738.txt>
[5] T. Berners-Lee and D. Connolly, "HyperText Markup Language
Specification -- 2.0", Work in Progress, MIT, HaL Computer
Systems, November 1994.
<URL:http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/html/>
[6] T. Berners-Lee, R. T. Fielding, and H. Frystyk Nielsen,
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0" , Work in Progress,
MIT, UC Irvine, CERN, December 1993.
<URL:http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/>
[7] Crocker, D. H., H. Crocker, "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet
Text Messages", STD 11, RFC 822,
<URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc822.txt>, UDEL, August 1982.
<URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc822.txt>
[8] Horton, F. Davis, B. Kahle, H. Morris, J. Salem, T. Shen, R. Wang,
J. Sui, and M. Grinbaum, "WAIS Interface Protocol Prototype
Functional Specification", (v1.5), Thinking Machines Corporation,
April 1990. <URL:ftp://quake.think.com/pub/wais/doc/protspec.txt>
[9] M. Horton and R. Adams, R., "Standard For Interchange of USENET
messages",
Messages", RFC 1036, <URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1036.txt>, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Center for
Seismic Studies, December 1987.
[9] Kantor,
<URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1036.txt>
[10] B. Kantor and P. Lapsley, P., "Network News Transfer Protocol:
A Proposed Standard for the Stream-Based Transmission of News",
RFC977, <URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc977.txt>,
RFC 977, UC San Diego & UC Berkeley, February 1986.
[10] Postel,
<URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc977.txt>
[11] J. Kunze, "Functional Requirements for Internet Resource
Locators", Work in Progress, IS&T, UC Berkeley, November 1994.
<URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-uri-irl-fun-req-02.txt>
[12] B. C. Neuman and S. Augart, "The Prospero Protocol",
USC/Information Sciences Institute, June 1993.
<URL:ftp://prospero.isi.edu/pub/prospero/doc/
prospero-protocol.PS.Z>
[13] J. Postel and J. K. Reynolds, J.K., "TELNET Protocol Specification",
RFC 854, <URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc854.txt>, USC/Information Sciences Institute, May 1983.
[11] Davis, F., Kahle, B., Morris, H., Salem, J., Shen, T., Wang, R.,
Sui, J.,
<URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc854.txt>
[14] J. Postel and Grinbaum, M., "WAIS Interface J. K. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol Prototype
Functional Specification", (v1.5), Thinking Machines Corporation,
<URL:ftp://quake.think.com/pub/wais/doc/protspec.txt>,
April 1990.
[12] (FTP)",
STD 9, RFC 959, USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1985.
<URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc959.txt>
[15] M. St. Pierre, M, J. Fullton, J., K. Gamiel, K., J. Goldman, J., B. Kahle, B.,
J. Kunze, J., H. Morris, H., and F. Schiettecatte, F.,
"WAIS over Z39.50-1988", RFC 1625,
<URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1625.txt>, June 1994.
[13] Neuman, B.C., and Augart, S. "The Prospero Protocol",
USC Information Sciences Institute, <URL:
ftp://prospero.isi.edu/pub/prospero/doc/prospero-protocol.PS.Z>, WAIS, Inc., CNIDR,
Thinking Machines Corp., UC Berkeley, FS Consulting, June 1993.
[14] Berners-Lee, T., Connolly, D., et al. "HyperText Markup Language
Specification -- 2.0", Internet-Draft (work in progress),
<URL:ftp://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/html/>, November 1994.
[15] Kunze, J., "Functional Requirements for Internet Resource
Locators", Internet-Draft (work in progress),
<URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-uri-irl-fun-req-01.txt>, July 1994.
<URL:ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1625.txt>
9. Author's Address
Roy T. Fielding
Department of Information and Computer Science
University of California
Irvine, CA 92717-3425
U.S.A.
Tel: +1 (714) 824-4049
Fax: +1 (714) 824-4056
Email: fielding@ics.uci.edu
This Internet-Draft expires May 27, July 9, 1995.
10. Appendix - Embedding the Base URL in HTML documents.
It is useful to consider an example of how the base URL of a
document can be embedded within the document's content. In this
appendix, we describe how documents written in the Hypertext Markup
Language (HTML) [14] [5] can include an embedded base URL. This appendix
does not form a part of the relative URL specification and should not
be considered as anything more than a descriptive example.
HTML defines a special element "BASE" which, when present in the
"HEAD" portion of a document, signals that the parser should use
the BASE element's "HREF" attribute as the base URL for resolving
any relative URLs. The "HREF" attribute must be an absolute URL.
Note that, in HTML, element and attribute names are case-insensitive.
For example:
<!doctype html public "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<TITLE>An example HTML document</TITLE>
<BASE href="http://www.ics.uci.edu/Test/a/b/c">
</HEAD><BODY>
... <A href="../x">a hypertext anchor</A> ...
</BODY></HTML>
A parser reading the example document should interpret the given
relative URL "../x" as representing the absolute URL
<URL:http://www.ics.uci.edu/Test/a/x>
regardless of the context in which the example document was obtained.
----