On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email protected] > wrote:
> Wendy, > > On 13 Feb 2013, at 14:38, Wendy Roome wrote: > > > 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. > > Or a reference to section 5 of RFC 3986 rather than re-specifying its > semantics. > > Maybe something like: > URIs can be relative and MUST be resolved according to section 5 of > [RFC3986]. > +1 for allowing relative URIs. If there are no dissenting opinions, we'll update the draft with Ben's proposed text. > > Ben > > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
