Hacker News Reader

Comment by boring_twenties | Hacker News Reader

What about http://foo/ and http://foo:80/? Are those different URLs?

One thing I find interesting is that it doesn't canonicalize the path portion at all. E.g.:

    scala> new URL("http://localhost/foo/bar/baz").equals(new URL("http://localhost/foo/../foo/bar/baz"))
    res0: Boolean = false

It's just funny to me that they went to the effort to do a full network request to see if the hostnames resolve to the same IP, but didn't bother to normalize paths.

Wow, so it's even stupider than we thought. Impressive.

Yes, they just resolve to the same thing

Port numbers do not resolve. And your 'thing' is ambiguous.

RFC-3986, section 6.2.3:

    For example, because the "http" scheme makes use of an authority
    component, has a default port of "80", and defines an empty path to be
    equivalent to "/", the following four URIs are equivalent:
   
      http://example.com
      http://example.com/
      http://example.com:/
      http://example.com:80/

> January 2005

And? It has not been obsoleted, and it's marked as STD0066.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com