On Sun, Sep 11 2011, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote: > Julien Danjou writes: > >> I'm sorry, I am missing why this does not apply to the example I gave. > > http://a/../../b is not a relative URL. :-) > > The entire thing is about how to glue a base URL, like "http://a/b/c" > together with a relative URL, like "../../d". If you're not gluing URLs > together, then the section does not apply. At all. Oh ok. But if you consider the base URL being http://a/, you clearly match this case. I admit we are not doing relative anyhow, but I don't think absolute and relative are supposed to have different behaviour in such a case. And it seems that 5.2.4 clearly explains the algo in our (absolute) case, don't you think? -- Julien Danjou ❱ http://julien.danjou.info