Re: [Uri-review] Request for review

On 7/3/06, Andrey Shur <andreysh@exchange.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Martin,

Mark.  Now we're even 8-)

>
> On 6/29/06, Martin Duerst <> wrote:
> >>  And if we were to use fragment-identifiers for this purpose, we would
> >> raise the problematic question of what base URI should be used when
> >> dereferencing relative-URIs embedded within an individual part. If we
> >> used a fragment-identifier to address the individual part, then by
> >> ordinary conventions, the base URI for resolving relative references
> >> embedded in the individual part would be the
> >> (fragment-identifier-free) URI of the package as a whole.
> >>
> >> The combination of our three goals lead us to our specification:
> >>
> >> 1.  External absolute references to individual parts.
> >> 2.  An individual part's URI can serve as a base URI.
> >> 3.  Package can reside on any server implementing any protocol
> >> supporting a GET-like operation, without requiring new code to be
> >> deployed on the server.
>
> >My solution also meets those goals, AFAICT.
>
> Could you please explain how your solution works for the package residing on non-HTTP (e.g. FTP) server?

If I had a package at;

  ftp://example.org/foo/my.package/

then I could identify parts like so;

  ftp://example.org/foo/my.package/part1

Mark.

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