Re: [Uri-review] Request for review

Andrey,

First, my sincere apologies for botching your name earlier.  I didn't
look closely enough, obviously ...

On 5/20/06, Andrey Shur <andreysh@exchange.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Thank you for the question. The primary reason why we did not use the
> approach you describe is the requirement for relative references within a
> package parts to refer to parts within the same package.
> Our registration template says:
>
>    The purposes of the "pack" URI scheme are:
>
>    1. To identify a part resource within a package that conforms to
>       Open Packaging Conventions [4].
>    2. To enable the use of a part's URI as a base URI for resolving
>       relative references to parts within the same package.
>
> Let's assume that in your example part identified by the Uri
> http://www.mysite.com/my.package/a/b/foo.xaml
> holds relative reference /bar.xml.
> Being resolved against the base Uri of the part it gives us
> http://www.mysite.com/bar.xml which is outside of the package.

Ok, thanks.  But why do you need to refer to a part using "/bar.xml"?
What purpose does that serve?  Why does "bar.xml" not suffice?

Perhaps the packaging spec could shed some light on this, and I'm sure
you're just doing what your lawyers suggested by using a license, but
I'm not about to accept its terms without running it by my employer's
lawyers, lest I get my employer in trouble by accepting (even though
I'm not representing them here).  And I'm not sure about the IETF
rules about this stuff, but I believe it to be (at least) considered
bad form.

Mark.

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
Uri-review@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review