Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI

In not suggesting we use or allow relative URIs. The immediate question would be "relative to what". I think the URIs should be absolute, but not following the syntax of "absolute-URI", but instead just following "URI".

Paul

-------- Original Message --------
From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon Jul 22 02:46:25 EDT 2013
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Cc: webfinger <webfinger@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI

On 22 July 2013 07:47, 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 ]
>

There are many ways that people do this, see:

http://tantek.com/2011/238/b1/many-ways-slice-url-name-pieces

>
> 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?
>

+1 on allowing relative URIs

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