Re: partial URLs ? (was <p> ... </p>)

Jon Wallis (
Wed, 20 Dec 1995 11:31:57 +0000

At 13:19 19/12/95 -0600, BearHeart/Bill Weinman wrote:
>At 10:40 am 12/19/95 -0800, Walter Ian Kaye wrote:
>><A HREF="index.html"><IMG SRC="../gifs/btnhome3.gif" ALT="[Home]"
>><A HREF="../map.html"><IMG SRC="../gifs/btnmap3.gif" ALT="[Index]"
>>(I'm gonna be changing the form and cgi soon, btw, cuz Lynx doesn't like
>>partial URLs -- tho' Netscape handles this form perfectly.)
> The problem with the parial URLs may be the "../" references.
> Some servers, and perhaps some browsers too, disallow them because
>they've been abused to get around security measures.

That really shouldn't be a problem if the system is set up right - but since
so many systems are poorly set up in terms of security I can believe it.

However, it doesn't make sense to stop a browser using relative URLs, since
the browser on its own can't pose a security threat. Also, not being able
to use relative addressing causes major problems with portability of
document sets.

Jon Wallis        Senior Lecturer in Computing / University Webmaster
School of Computing & I.T., University of Wolverhampton, UK - WV1 1SB
   Personal WWW Home Page   <URL:>
     University WWW Home Page <URL:> 
-----------------"That's some catch, that catch-22"------------------