Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Mon, 22 July 2013 07:03 UTC

Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.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 D6CF611E80E0 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.537
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 7c-p-QQ+lpzL for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12BA511E80DC for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyn-170.arid.us (rrcs-98-101-148-48.midsouth.biz.rr.com [98.101.148.48]) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6M73Muh029512 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 22 Jul 2013 03:03:23 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1374476603; bh=h9VSXDfV6HDk48laO9vk72HdzCZ602eeAs7i3IdWThw=; h=In-Reply-To:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Subject:From: Date:To:CC:Message-ID; b=RkLr0FGQnX1rxSSaPdjJeLruqWblGLOk8CRdaEpO/tAPiQSt5OG3MAaw9qjFfN607 MDNh5uvdgBCcxhhqHeds+n4c3qjlx1Qg+vZcCa8MfMshSDOVWuH9FLaXOiVIBzYwU9 T/LbtGypceJBDejAz2skzjdPJUctPYJXK4e8gcDQ=
User-Agent: Kaiten Mail
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6iv4VtpVwOg2obGUjY3iV=bmy3_hVnpdswuHR17L=z5Gzg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <028101ce869e$f02cddb0$d0869910$@packetizer.com> <CAHBU6iv4VtpVwOg2obGUjY3iV=bmy3_hVnpdswuHR17L=z5Gzg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----PBCW73EABORJT0SLQC7JWP41GCWFPR"
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 03:03:16 -0400
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Message-ID: <fd69e2bc-3f18-46f7-8716-9101dcc3cb10@email.android.com>
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 07:03:31 -0000

There is a section in 3986 that defines "absolute-URI". The syntax doors not allow for a fragment.

I think the intent is to specify just "URI" and not absolute URI.

Paul


-------- Original Message --------
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Sent: Mon Jul 22 02:15:35 EDT 2013
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Cc: "webfinger@ietf.org" <webfinger@ietf.org>
Subject: 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;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
>