RFC 3986 does define relative URIs, so technically that's sufficient. But
I think that's like a lawyer burying some critical information -- like
"double every amount that you owe us" -- in tiny type in a footnote.
Legal, but sleazy.
The problem is that software libraries with a simple connectToServer(uri)
function require an absolute uri. If the uri might be relative, the client
must first resolve the uri in the context of some absolute base uri. Most
libraries provide a function to do that, but it's easy to forget that step.
Case in point: My client, which passed all the interop tests, failed when
it contacted a server that returned relative URIs. (And yes, I've since
fixed my client.)
So if we want to allow relative URIs, we should be more explicit. At the
very least, add this sentence to the end of Ben's revised uri section:
Relative URIs should be resolved using the URI of the Information
Resource Directory as the base URI.
Even better, use some relative URIs in the example.
On the other hand, if we want to forbid relative uris, we should instead
add:
The URI must be absolute, not relative.
- Wendy
>Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:33:10 +0000
>From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: [alto] Should we allow relative URIs in resource
> directories?
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
>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
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
