Re: [alto] Should we allow relative URIs in resource directories?

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk
> wrote:

> Wendy,
>
> On 13 Feb 2013, at 14:38, Wendy Roome wrote:
>
> > RFC 3986 does define relative URIs, so technically that's sufficient. But
> > I think that's like a lawyer burying some critical information -- like
> > "double every amount that you owe us" -- in tiny type in a footnote.
> > Legal, but sleazy.
> >
> > The problem is that software libraries with a simple connectToServer(uri)
> > function require an absolute uri. If the uri might be relative, the
> client
> > must first resolve the uri in the context of some absolute base uri. Most
> > libraries provide a function to do that, but it's easy to forget that
> step.
> >
> > Case in point: My client, which passed all the interop tests, failed when
> > it contacted a server that returned relative URIs. (And yes, I've since
> > fixed my client.)
> >
> > So if we want to allow relative URIs, we should be more explicit. At the
> > very least, add this sentence to the end of Ben's revised uri section:
> >
> >    Relative URIs should be resolved using the URI of the Information
> > Resource Directory as the base URI.
>
> Or a reference to section 5 of RFC 3986 rather than re-specifying its
> semantics.
>
> Maybe something like:
>    URIs can be relative and MUST be resolved according to section 5 of
>    [RFC3986].
>

+1 for allowing relative URIs.  If there are no dissenting opinions, we'll
update the draft with Ben's proposed text.


>
> Ben
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>