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
>