Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI

Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> Wed, 24 July 2013 19:13 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 E334011E8215 for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:13:17 -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 cLwoAITpAhVY for <webfinger@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:13:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22d.google.com (mail-la0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C18A711E8242 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f45.google.com with SMTP id ev20so643243lab.4 for <webfinger@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:13:12 -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=kteA71tLG/U5I5qo91OVh9gXmBvIUT7WwUeltxESGOs=; b=yhBip2EMPNDJIj6Y5DEuJF0RFeBSMe2droeEF4v763RJX7FB2PIhPjCBkcm3tZ2asL 5otU8U+DMroQy2hEfBWdadAnRNIb3fAGAnHTbJyb0+ksSGyp1HmaP0XzLYr0c88oY85U XbUA3F6MS6H2wguPqx4mLtbwCgn6Mlj9zw/Q0GySOLDLhhtrmLB1tSXqv4vzmnVu4XjI T3PxghCImUkUc6yDvgUQKv6BY19HRCm2ubBMkbJqncEAgp2VYm1IPFLWYp/Zj5Zn8TGu GA2DKMre39N8Uz8FH876MJBFev0x1h3vFyB/0ItTL/YzdUPgEBdVtyVIOJr1r+3ivkdb lkmA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.115.142 with SMTP id jo14mr17414253lab.87.1374693192588; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.59.193 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <979B65CA-EC87-4D98-9FA0-67822BEC0DFF@ve7jtb.com>
References: <028101ce869e$f02cddb0$d0869910$@packetizer.com> <CAKaEYhJwpR5b6jEcGYzAcWDJ0P1v6w2+L_h0Sh=m-ZOZA=ZHyw@mail.gmail.com> <0a1140f5-24d9-4be6-aab4-1ae6a3d63c0c@email.android.com> <CAKaEYh+iHNz_WawqRKakrHCdctC6_1V5COWYWQ4m9aC0+fh9WQ@mail.gmail.com> <032701ce86e5$27b2dff0$77189fd0$@packetizer.com> <CAKaEYhJUG=RLqpvhze35_HAidNQbFjsWH=43X0cPFaCDZsZb_w@mail.gmail.com> <979B65CA-EC87-4D98-9FA0-67822BEC0DFF@ve7jtb.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:13:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJiUB6smXRivRbLShNw0Yq-XbPoUo73iEt76oLxKS5+pg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3504c6b62a804e246b309
Cc: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>, 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: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 19:13:18 -0000

On 24 July 2013 19:19, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:

> Relative URI are not useful without a base to be relative to.  Unless we
> say how to determine the base of a relative URI they should not be allowed.
>
> I an imagine several ways to determine a base but without specifying it
> applications will not behave consistently.   The JRD is not a HTML document.
>

Sure.  I wasnt trying to imply the JRD was the same as an HTML document.
Relative URIs, can be used in many contexts such as html/json/xml do indeed
require a base.  I think the following text from RFC 3986, "5.1.
Establishing a Base URI" would be relevant here, and it's referred to by
JSON LD too

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.1


>
> John B.
>
> On 2013-07-24, at 12:58 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 22 July 2013 16:10, 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?
>>
>
> Hi Paul, currently "Absolute URI" occurs only in section 4.4 (ie the
> description of JRD).  Certainly I think the 'absolute' should be removed in
> section 4.4.
>
> The RFC in essence describes two things,
>
> 1. the webfinger protocol
> 2. the JRD definition
>
> This restriction on relative URIs applies to (2), rather than, the whole
> document, but as it happens that turns out to be the same thing
>
> Side note: in other situations I like relative URIs because they can be
> moved from one location to another in a non-breaking way.  Say I have
> /about/ /photos/ /blog/ at one location, I can move them to another without
> having to worry too much.  Therefore, if JRD was ever used in a context
> outside of webfinger, that would be a slight advantage.
>
>
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> 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
>
>
>