«

I found a strange URI when I examined the crawling log of a web crawler
I recently wrote in Perl: "http://hamlug.org/../../../../". When I
paste it into web browser's address column, it was transformed to
"http://hamlug.org/", which is obviously correct. However, when I wrote
a simple test script as follows:

#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;

my $rawURL = "http://hamlug.org/../../../../";
my $url = URI->new($rawURL)->canonical->as_string;
print $url, "\n";


To my great astonishment, URI::canonical method does nothing to my
$rawURL.
What is the reason?
Does there exist some module to tackle this?

wrote:

> I found a strange URI when I examined the crawling log of a web crawler
> I recently wrote in Perl: "http://hamlug.org/../../../../". When I
> paste it into web browser's address column, it was transformed to
> "http://hamlug.org/", which is obviously correct.

Ah, it may be _obvious_ but is is _actually_ correct?

In other words has RFC2396 actually been superceded?

See previous discussion...

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....52d47cb623154a

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Brian McCauley wrote:

> In other words has RFC2396 actually been superceded?

STD1 does not show it as having been superseded!

> See previous discussion...

Yes, but where -is- this mooted draft? I don't find anything
which would match it in the place where internet drafts seem to
be stashed these days ( http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ ).

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

> Yes, but where -is- this mooted draft?

The links to it in the previous thread are still valid.

http://www.gbiv.com/protocols/uri/re...s-07.html#path
http://www.gbiv.com/protocols/uri/re...e-dot-segments

> I don't find anything
> which would match it in the place where internet drafts seem to
> be stashed these days ( http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ ).

Well its expiry was March 2005, maybe they don't keep expired ones.