URI::canonical method fails to canonicalize "http:://hamlug.org/../../../../"

[xuqy]

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?

 

[Brian McCauley]

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In other words has RFC2396 actually been superceded?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..._frm/thread/2371f28a8acd8071/4752d47cb623154a

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

In other words has RFC2396 actually been superceded?

STD1 does not show it as having been superseded!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/ ).

 

[Brian McCauley]

Yes, but where -is- this mooted draft?

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

http://www.gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-07.html#path
http://www.gbiv.com/protocols/uri/r...-uri-rfc2396bis-07.html#relative-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.