RE: [Uri-review] Request for review

Mark,

you ask why do we need to refer to a part using /bar.xml?

We don't need to use exactly this form of relative reference to refer to a part. Our goal was to guarantee that any relative reference in a package part refers to a part within the same package (unless, as I mentioned before, relative reference is in the network-path form, or base Uri for the reference is explicitly defined

in a way that leads to opposite). Having said this, in the example below "/bar.xml" can be replaced by e.g. "../../../bar.xml" with the same reasoning.

As for your concerns about the <authority> component of the "pack:" Uri being the encoded Uri of the package, it is indeed an unusual (although we are sure - consistent) approach. I would expect the serious discussion on that in the context of registration procedure. To begin with let me say that the grammar for pack: <authority> component completely fits the RFC 3986.

Thanks

- Andrey

-----Original Message-----
From: mbaker@gmail.com [mailto:mbaker@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark Baker
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 12:35 PM
To: Andrey Shur
Cc: uri-review@ietf.org; Ted Hardie; Jerry Dunietz; Gregg Brown; John Calhoon (LCA)
Subject: 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.