Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Tue, 03 July 2012 03:55 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B96311E80EC for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 20:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.206
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_HTML_A_BODY=0.742, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3aS3g70hfUge for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 20:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC6511E8108 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 20:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id q633u31t005154 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:56:03 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 19a8_aab6_0211dc86_c4c3_11e1_b41d_001d096c5782; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:56:02 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:40281) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S15DB6D0> for <apps-discuss@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:56:06 +0900
Message-ID: <4FF26D4F.3070908@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:55:59 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812B6B6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366568FF8@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <043201cd54a5$79f2e170$6dd8a450$@packetizer.com> <CAKaEYhL0NS=RZXTdyOMBM_q15P7D1KZ9kgUyMYYB06kA9f0w8Q@mail.gmail.com> <4FEC3B4F.80607@ninebynine.org> <4FEC8BF0.6070605@stpeter.im> <4FEFBF51.5000905@stpeter.im> <1341157111.65669.YahooMailNeo@web31805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4FF0C90D.2060207@stpeter.im> <4FF18C30.2040902@ninebynine.org> <CAMm+LwgVKKHOTMnzLAnxvXFjb=F+e5acdk12fO5Nj-DjUq5uHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKaEYhJdbYN4O3GbBYw=mxe3GBL8q51w3YnkR2Y4=1Tn0ztCOA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgazJL2rQjNhnGHgw3kYnR21--RzZ6pWVG5YjVabogRKQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366572961@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4FF1C3B5.4090902@stpeter.im> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943665729B6@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4FF1CA48.7090609@st peter.im> <5EBEB0AD-B7B9-4EF4-B7C2-055679B36705@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <5EBEB0AD-B7B9-4EF4-B7C2-055679B36705@ve7jtb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 03:55:57 -0000

On 2012/07/03 1:44, John Bradley wrote:
> Relative URI need to be relative to a base context.
>
> They don't contain scheme or host information.
>
> I could see having a relative acct: URI of:
>
> <HEAD>
>     <BASE href="acct://example.com">
>   </HEAD>
> <BODY>
> <A href="bob">bob's account</A>
> </BODY>
> That would be assembled by some user agent to "acct:bob@example.com" as a URI for dereferencing.

It would be assembled into "acct://example.com/bob". See RFC 3986, 
Section 5 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5).

Regards,   Martin.


> That is different from throwing around "acct:bob"  which is like saying "http:///bob.html" and not a valid URI as I understand it.
>
> This is the good thing about trying to document acct: separately,  it brings out issues that WF might not address.