Wendy,
I see no reason to restrict to absolute URIs.
Currently section 6.7.2 of the ALTO protocol spec states:
uri A URI at which the ALTO Server provides one or more Information
Resources, or an Information Resource Directory indicating
additional Information Resources.
Would adding a reference to section 4.1 of RFC3986 be sufficient, e.g.
uri A URI reference (as per section 4.1 of [RFC3986] to one or more
Information Resources, or an Information Resource Directory
indicating additional Information Resources.
Ben
On 11 Feb 2013, at 16:53, Wendy Roome wrote:
> In general URIs can be relative as well as absolute. So if an ALTO
> server's resource directory has the URI
> "http://alto.example.com/directory";, directory entries like
> { "uri" : "/networkmap", ....}
> or
> { "uri" : "costmap/num/routingcost", ...}
> should be legal and should resolve to "http://alto.example.com/networkmap";
> and "http://alto.example.com/costmap/num/routingcost";, respectively.
>
> However, our examples only use absolute URIs. As far as I can tell, draft
> 13 doesn't say anything about relative URIs.
>
> So I think we should either explicitly allow relative URIs -- and use them
> in examples in the RFC and in the next interop -- or else forbid them.
> That would affect Sections 6.7.2 & 6.7.3.
>
> Comments?
>
> - Wendy Roome
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
