Re: OA2.0d11: Minor nit-pick regarding normalization
Hi Josh / Martin, For the sake of an appropriate "short" sentence, is it not appropriate to include Martin's text (or similar). Does anyone really want to have read 1/2 a dozen extra specifications for clarification of a single points that could be simply included in the OpenID spec? For the sake of allowing me to more easily adopt OpenID. Sure - we MUST have appropriate references, and SHOULD use a "quote" from the authorative document - if it is clearly understood. If not, I think it prudent to provide as a plain an English description / example as is possible. I have read a few specifications after being asked to implement/incorporate them into work I was doing here at the university - but for the most part I ended up throwing out the "spec" and visiting a wiki or a mailing list - with regards to sourcing information on how to implement the specification. I can't "ever" remember actually reading a spec from start to finish for the purpose of implementing it. Used it as a reference for information I collected elsewhere - most certainly... I realise the importance of the SPEC and I understand the technical space in which they live, but surely we should practice what we preach - ease of uptake etc in our own documentation? >>> On Friday, February 02, 2007 at 20:19, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Josh Hoyt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/1/07, Martin Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The normalization table in appendix A.1 lists several examples of the >> normalization of URIs. The last few examples are as follows: >> >> http://example4.com/ => http://example4.com/ >> https://example5.com/ => https://example5.com/ >> example6.com => http://example6.com >> >> I believe that the last example should instead normalize to: >> http://example6.com/ > > You're right that the example needs to have the slash added. I don't > think that we need any extra wording because RFC3986, which we > reference for the normalization rules says: > >a URI that uses the generic syntax for authority with an >empty path should be normalized to a path of "/". > > Josh > ___ > specs mailing list > specs@openid.net > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: OA2.0d11: Minor nit-pick regarding normalization
Agreed, good catch! -Original Message- From: Josh Hoyt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 01:20 AM Pacific Standard Time To: Martin Atkins Cc: specs@openid.net Subject:Re: OA2.0d11: Minor nit-pick regarding normalization On 2/1/07, Martin Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The normalization table in appendix A.1 lists several examples of the > normalization of URIs. The last few examples are as follows: > > http://example4.com/ => http://example4.com/ > https://example5.com/ => https://example5.com/ > example6.com => http://example6.com > > I believe that the last example should instead normalize to: > http://example6.com/ You're right that the example needs to have the slash added. I don't think that we need any extra wording because RFC3986, which we reference for the normalization rules says: a URI that uses the generic syntax for authority with an empty path should be normalized to a path of "/". Josh ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
Re: OA2.0d11: Minor nit-pick regarding normalization
On 2/1/07, Martin Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The normalization table in appendix A.1 lists several examples of the > normalization of URIs. The last few examples are as follows: > > http://example4.com/ => http://example4.com/ > https://example5.com/ => https://example5.com/ > example6.com => http://example6.com > > I believe that the last example should instead normalize to: > http://example6.com/ You're right that the example needs to have the slash added. I don't think that we need any extra wording because RFC3986, which we reference for the normalization rules says: a URI that uses the generic syntax for authority with an empty path should be normalized to a path of "/". Josh ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
OA2.0d11: Minor nit-pick regarding normalization
Hi, This is a really minor thing I just spotted due to leaving my browser open on the relevant part of the spec and coming back to it later. :) The normalization table in appendix A.1 lists several examples of the normalization of URIs. The last few examples are as follows: http://example4.com/ => http://example4.com/ https://example5.com/ => https://example5.com/ example6.com => http://example6.com I believe that the last example should instead normalize to: http://example6.com/ * A HTTP URL without a path is a nonsense because the protocol doesn't allow for an empty path anyway. (You can't GET HTTP/1.1) * It's causes http://example6.com/ and example6.com to normalize to different strings, which is counter-intuitive. * There is no useful reason to omit that slash except that the currently-specced normalization rules exclude it. Therefore there should be an extra provision in section 7.2: * If the resulting identifier is an HTTP or HTTPS URL and it contains only the two slashes after the protocol specifier, an additional slash MUST be appended to the end of the string. (not fussy on the exact wording.) ___ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
