Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI

[John Bradley <[e-mail]>]

Yes +1.

On 2013-07-22, at 10:10 AM, "Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]] 
> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Mon Jul 22 02:46:25 EDT 2013
> 
> To: "Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: webfinger <[e-mail]>
> 
> Subject: Re: [webfinger] Absolute URI vs URI
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On 22 July 2013 07:47, Paul E. Jones <[e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger