Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ga9so3276958lab.10 for ; 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: References: <028101ce869e$f02cddb0$d0869910$@packetizer.com> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:04:25 +0200 Message-ID: From: Melvin Carvalho To: "Paul E. Jones" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113321defbbd1204e2151fe5 Cc: "webfinger@ietf.org" , Tim Bray 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 08:04:40 -0000 --001a113321defbbd1204e2151fe5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 22 July 2013 09:03, Paul E. Jones 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 > *Sent:* Mon Jul 22 02:15:35 EDT 2013 > *To:* "Paul E. Jones" > *Cc:* "webfinger@ietf.org" > *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI > > I just read your note 3 times, and I don=92t get it. 3986 describes the > syntax of a =93URI reference=94 to an absolute or relative URI. A relati= ve URI > reference can have an arbitrary number of leading parts missing, e.g. > > //foo.bar/cat/dog?x=3Dy > /cat/dog?x=3Dy > ./dog?x=3Dy > > When specs specify absolute URIs, they typically just mean you can=92t om= it > 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 wr= ote: > >> Folks, >> >> One of the requirements in the JRD spec is that certain URIs (e.g., thos= e >> identifying link relation types and properties) be "absolute URIs". Thi= s >> term has been a point of confusion, since RFC 3986 uses the term to have= a >> concrete meaning, namely this: >> >> absolute-URI =3D 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 =3D 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 > > --001a113321defbbd1204e2151fe5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



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

There is a section in 39= 86 that defines "absolute-URI". The syntax doors not allow for a = fragment.

I think the intent is to specify just "URI" and no= t absolute URI.

Ah right, yes.=A0 Good catch.=A0= Yes, I think the "Absolute" part there is unnecessarily restrict= ive, and may limit interoperability.=A0
=A0

Paul



From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Sent: Mon Jul 22 02:15:35 EDT 2013
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Cc: "we= bfinger@ietf.org" <webfinger@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI

I just read your note 3 times, and I d= on=92t get it.=A0 3986 describes the syntax of a =93URI reference=94 to an = absolute or relative URI.=A0 A relative URI reference can have an arbitrary= number of leading parts missing, e.g.

//foo.bar/cat/dog?x=3Dy
/cat/dog?x=3Dy
./dog?x= =3Dy

When specs specify absolute URIs, they typically just mea= n you can=92t omit any leading parts, it has nothing to do with whether a #= fragment is there or not.=A0 -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"= ;. =A0This
term has been a point of confusion, since RFC 3986 uses the term to have a<= br> concrete meaning, namely this:

=A0 =A0 =A0absolute-URI =A0=3D scheme ":" hier-part [ "?&quo= t; query ]

And the term is used, because that's the term used in the OASIS XRD
specification. =A0However, 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. =A0I believe the intent of that language was not to require the above constrained syntax, but to require the standard URI syntax:

=A0 =A0 =A0URI =3D scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [= "#" fragment ]

Given that understanding, I believe we should remove the word "absolut= e"
that appears in front of "URI" in the WebFinger spec. =A0Do other= s have an
opinion on this?

Paul


_______________________________________________
webfinger mailing list
webfinger@ietf.org<= /a>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger


_______________________________________________
webfinger mailing list
webfinger@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger


--001a113321defbbd1204e2151fe5--