[As individual contributor]
On 02/15/2013 12:06 AM, Richard Alimi wrote:
+1 for allowing relative URIs. If there are no dissenting opinions,
we'll update the draft with Ben's proposed text.
Richard: That is fine. Originally I was going to state that we adopt
absolute URIs, but I must admit that this was driven by expediency
of us adopting *a* position instead of greeting the issue with silence
on the list.
Wendy has outlined the pros and cons of absolute versus relative URIs,
and yes it is a bit of pain to handle relative URIs, But as long as we
have a position well spelled out in the document, adhering to it is a
matter of minor implementation complexity. Let's go for what you
suggest above.
Thanks,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email protected]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
