Opened 12 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
#997 closed defect (fixed)
uri-path-relative? misunderstands the root path
| Reported by: | andyjpb | Owned by: | sjamaan |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | major | Milestone: | someday |
| Component: | extensions | Version: | 4.8.x |
| Keywords: | Cc: | ||
| Estimated difficulty: |
Description (last modified by )
(use uri-common)
#;16> (uri-path-relative? (uri-reference "http://www.knodium.com"))
#t
#;17> (uri-path-relative? (uri-reference "http://www.knodium.com/"))
#f
Change History (3)
comment:1 Changed 12 years ago by
| Description: | modified (diff) |
|---|---|
| Owner: | set to sjamaan |
| Status: | new → accepted |
comment:2 Changed 12 years ago by
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
This has been fixed in trunk. Please give it a try.
I didn't really know what to do with the "foo" case: strictly speaking, this can't be subject to the scheme-based normalization rules of section 6.2.3 (RFC 3986), because we don't have a scheme.
On the other hand, this egg already makes some hard assumptions about the type of URI (for example, it assumes the query part *must* be form-encoded, as key/value pairs) so perhaps this wouldn't be so bad? It would be breaking with the spec, though.
Because I wasn't sure, I kept the behavior the way it was (ie, (uri-path (uri-reference "foo")) returns '() instead of '(/ ""), making it inconsistent with cases where we do know the scheme).
Perhaps we should be checking that the URI really is a common URI (ie, has a known scheme listed in default-ports), and failing otherwise? This would be obnoxious but possible and prevent more errors being made, but might cause some problems of its own. Gah!