Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI

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:
>
>> 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
>
>