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
>>
>
>