https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70036
Bug ID: 70036
Summary: Terms Used to Describe Directives: URL-path definition
unclear/misleading
Product: Apache httpd-2
Version: 2.5-HEAD
Hardware: All
URL: https://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/en/mod/directive-d
ict.html#Syntax
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: Documentation
Assignee: [email protected]
Reporter: [email protected]
Target Milestone: ---
The Syntax section of the Terms Used to Describe Directives page defines a
URL-path as follows:
> The part of a url which follows the scheme and hostname as in
> /path/to/file.html. The url-path represents a web-view of a resource, as
> opposed to a file-system view.
A few things are unclear or misleading there:
1. Both occurrences of “url” are lowercase.
2. The URL-path does not include the port, yet depending on how one interprets
the definition, the URL-path of http://www.example.com:80/path/to/file.html
would be « 80 » or « :80/path/to/file.html ».
3. "a web-view of a resource" is not particularly clear.
4. Depending on how one interprets the definition, it may include the query
string, but it actually does not. This could be disambiguated with “immediately
follows”, and by adding a query string to the example. This could also be
disambiguated by changing "part" to "component". RFC 3986 defines "component",
however the URL Standard appears to have dropped that terminology.
The hostname and port form the *authority*.
The URL Standard at https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#url-path has a definition of
“URL path”, but I don't find it so clear at this time.
🅭🄍: https://www.philippecloutier.com/Common+infrastructure+licensing#its
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
