Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Mon, 22 July 2013 06:15 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.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 4885D21F9EC2 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.828
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.828 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.148, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 1DtYOfjKpoqK for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f52.google.com (mail-vb0-f52.google.com [209.85.212.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DFAB21F99E3 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vb0-f52.google.com with SMTP id f12so4520622vbg.11 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=xnGP6xmiizTxiCgmfUmHqmfB0h8FDdVl7p22pJ5fcpM=; b=mSYDK1OY0ObX4oER6dzQpsUckzaIF+MOQkF8L1n95LAmP5kZASq7LMD98cDEVCFvd1 44pb6+h5Py4yZ/shm79qYfbj1Dg8RJcBneTMsD7eHjEPOZvsUE/VWCiIejGoDpXL2v7O h40dzPon8XyT+CSWfYXNSlZ71dQVLJrfozdNOq/CFSLOd0U7iYHW3isYSlV9AnDbdTwI k96UNfXS6AFgm7fy6uxqyTziW6U/oQ7V7Q+gJIF43+JWwYdQdAPXzq01g/PbieC7vVUJ m7YPvJZSp8Gsr4FOPhTtqEIPQaRVFRBVMDMGvFIDixjfnePf3+onWgHl4SLbvKLJHLCI DpfQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.85.161 with SMTP id i1mr8748657vez.97.1374473735642; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.219.200 with HTTP; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <028101ce869e$f02cddb0$d0869910$@packetizer.com>
References: <028101ce869e$f02cddb0$d0869910$@packetizer.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:15:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iv4VtpVwOg2obGUjY3iV=bmy3_hVnpdswuHR17L=z5Gzg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6da6acc431c804e2139aa5
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkYA9/6QCREiCQlRlaxvKEls4DY1zbo5lajuA5fG23rc94K+saZU/yVhrtnVuq856bZe4Jc
Cc: "webfinger@ietf.org" <webfinger@ietf.org>
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 06:15:43 -0000

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
>