Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI

Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> Mon, 22 July 2013 08:04 UTC

Return-Path: <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD0A421F8267 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 98SJYtywH8Za for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x233.google.com (mail-la0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0B9621F8616 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ga9so3276958lab.10 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=99+gf+rCUZCnbKWhp7O4UU+LT82dVmBgvGDVCU0kPko=; b=wdKiheKQIlsNIUzRI2KHe0wmIhyFyn7WlD1nVDyCHkHiK2ivD/VzJapcsWV3odIcG2 b2XW9w4NpKuzufRAuVmTfixI5z8HfYP3LtZ8qdEssswMZWIbPnA/AfBMw5zMsgYvSUxV Bj4HLvwK4y0jXnFKSgxVQ4yRxz4ZfEckMdWJONobfLrut3+FnTcV7iOkQrR7hZZKXIyq 9xqqGsMqo1dzpndRVZlgsJdpYkoC7TVb6Z8f7difpYOHYJSSntyJUq2rZH0Oigm4NT6s RQwOGpoCEP0JK63oNyVhSgu0nV+Xl9KZQfwfxOtFZ2Sd+MgJGmTvki5BNQY3JG7un+E1 akQg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.51.16 with SMTP id g16mr11694561lbo.0.1374480265623; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.59.193 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <fd69e2bc-3f18-46f7-8716-9101dcc3cb10@email.android.com>
References: <028101ce869e$f02cddb0$d0869910$@packetizer.com> <CAHBU6iv4VtpVwOg2obGUjY3iV=bmy3_hVnpdswuHR17L=z5Gzg@mail.gmail.com> <fd69e2bc-3f18-46f7-8716-9101dcc3cb10@email.android.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:04:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKKOuwGYExy_Wh2sDQLRGYiC=viBbYse8L=d91xTRdo=w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113321defbbd1204e2151fe5
Cc: "webfinger@ietf.org" <webfinger@ietf.org>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI
X-BeenThere: webfinger@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the Webfinger protocol proposal in the Applications Area <webfinger.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/webfinger>, <mailto:webfinger-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/webfinger>
List-Post: <mailto:webfinger@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:webfinger-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger>, <mailto:webfinger-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 08:04:40 -0000

On 22 July 2013 09:03, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:

> There is a section in 3986 that defines "absolute-URI". The syntax doors
> not allow for a fragment.
>
> I think the intent is to specify just "URI" and not absolute URI.
>
Ah right, yes.  Good catch.  Yes, I think the "Absolute" part there is
unnecessarily restrictive, and may limit interoperability.


> Paul
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
> *Sent:* Mon Jul 22 02:15:35 EDT 2013
> *To:* "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
> *Cc:* "webfinger@ietf.org" <webfinger@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI
>
> I just read your note 3 times, and I don’t get it.  3986 describes the
> syntax of a “URI reference” to an absolute or relative URI.  A relative URI
> reference can have an arbitrary number of leading parts missing, e.g.
>
> //foo.bar/cat/dog?x=y
> /cat/dog?x=y
> ./dog?x=y
>
> When specs specify absolute URIs, they typically just mean you can’t omit
> any leading parts, it has nothing to do with whether a #fragment is there
> or not.  -T
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com>wrote;wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> One of the requirements in the JRD spec is that certain URIs (e.g., those
>> identifying link relation types and properties) be "absolute URIs".  This
>> term has been a point of confusion, since RFC 3986 uses the term to have a
>> concrete meaning, namely this:
>>
>>      absolute-URI  = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ]
>>
>> And the term is used, because that's the term used in the OASIS XRD
>> specification.  However, it was not clear to me whether that referred to
>> the
>> above (which I assumed) or referred to URIs that are not relative URIs
>> (i.e., those lacking a scheme specified).
>>
>> I had an exchange with Eran Hammer and Mark Nottingham.  I believe the
>> intent of that language was not to require the above constrained syntax,
>> but to require the standard URI syntax:
>>
>>      URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]
>>
>> Given that understanding, I believe we should remove the word "absolute"
>> that appears in front of "URI" in the WebFinger spec.  Do others have an
>> opinion on this?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> webfinger mailing list
>> webfinger@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
>
>