Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI

+1


2013/7/22 John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>

> Yes +1.
>
> On 2013-07-22, at 10:10 AM, "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:
>
> Melvin,****
>
> It’s easy enough to replace strings in URIs should data need to be
> ported.  I suggest we remove the word “absolute” where we currently have
> “absolute URI” and then introduce a new paragraph in the terminology
> section as follows:****
>
> The use of URIs throughout this document refers to URIs following the
> syntax specified in Section 3 of RFC 3986.  Relative URIs, having syntax
> following that of Section 4.2 or RFC 3986, are not used with WebFinger.***
> *
>
> Is that clear?****
>
> Paul****
>
> *From:* Melvin Carvalho [mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 22, 2013 4:09 AM
> *To:* Paul E. Jones
> *Cc:* webfinger
> *Subject:* Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI****
> ** **
> ** **
>
> ** **
> On 22 July 2013 09:06, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> wrote:****
>
> 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".*
> ***
> Yes, that's a good question.  Generally relative URIs are relative to the
> document, but they need not be.  For example they could be relative by
> default to the [supposed] webfinger registry.  In JSON LD they have a
> @context variable which allows quite a bit of flexibility in this regard.
> I'm unsure if relative URIs are considered a must in standards based
> serialization (I suspect not) but they have the advantage of slightly
> increased data portability.****
>  ****
>
> Paul****
>
> ** **
> ------------------------------
> *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****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en