Is it legal (and good practice, and well supported) to omit the "authority" component from a URL (typically the hostname) but specify a scheme (typically http: or https: ) ?
For example, are these valid urls?
https:login.html (relative hostname and path) https:/auth/login.html (relative hostname, absolute path)The expected behaviour, of course, would be to use the current hostname - path (relative).
(BTW, this assumes that the // after the scheme is part of the authority (host) component, I think this is the right intepretation)
The motivation is the (common) requirement that some pages of a website are to be accesed via https and other via http, and we'd like to use relative urls instead of absolute (to test in different environments).
