Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI

Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> Mon, 22 July 2013 08:09 UTC

Return-Path: <melvincarvalho@gmail.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 D07AF11E80F6 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:09:45 -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 jI73yGqCkV4a for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:09:43 -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 500A021F85B4 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ga9so3280196lab.10 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:08:49 -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=+BVRjq78nDvYvKUusohTxOUHTlsuuAhB//p9zgqj8l8=; b=D3zVTiQ522aSzHwwnOCW61BbbK8nroVmCA43Mee71pQ5a9bNJkHzsD9VU/+1+lPf/5 BcS/oUrJdBIrMQ+OPYyG+DglspU+4brCx0FCXpOdOxUezknhA5ec0+SB+aTCzdTwpqSq N19J0amKfsXhRXl8VnZkKoFDdH8SaLUmPI0eeHhaTNYONNsaUCN9YXZvBT3zo5vfVUpp XmX41/wfJzZ7VpgbnqhTqz7MGFYPOi21xhC2/IO+2NelwnSjnIHUcVfbMFjGr7gHjAgX KzHjtyD7l++Ohyx1fFxbFzrJn8SghFf7z2zuYD68g6HrzyTaRVwH4vqr/WHxjbdUaOG5 K4fw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.198.164 with SMTP id jd4mr12023895lbc.74.1374480529158; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.59.193 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 01:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0a1140f5-24d9-4be6-aab4-1ae6a3d63c0c@email.android.com>
References: <028101ce869e$f02cddb0$d0869910$@packetizer.com> <CAKaEYhJwpR5b6jEcGYzAcWDJ0P1v6w2+L_h0Sh=m-ZOZA=ZHyw@mail.gmail.com> <0a1140f5-24d9-4be6-aab4-1ae6a3d63c0c@email.android.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:08:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYh+iHNz_WawqRKakrHCdctC6_1V5COWYWQ4m9aC0+fh9WQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c33f26b0f77404e2152f14
Cc: webfinger <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 08:09:51 -0000

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
>>
>
>