I should make it clear that under PROPOSAL 1, below, the corresponding
paragraph in the current specifications is not touched and the paragraph
from Patrick's understanding is deleted.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:]
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200809/msg00100.html
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:54
To:
Cc: 'Patrick Durusau';
Subject: RE: [office] Text for 17.5?
Actually, I *was* stunned into silence. Mostly it was because I had
mis-read Michael's proposal for the paragraph that describes the base-IRI
rule.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The OASIS Standard for ODF 1.0 refers to a different RFC and
uses URI, not IRI. The IRI language and RFC3986/RFC3987 are only used in IS
26300 (and ODF 1.0ed2-cs1). So we need to word the erratum appropriately to
do the right thing in the respective documents. I also think there are some
edge cases around character-set encodings in Zip files versus in the XML
versus in file systems, along with the presumption that IRIs are in an
encoding of Unicode (but may have URL %-escaping). We need to look at
tightening that for 1.2, perhaps.
WITH REGARD TO PATRICK'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROPOSAL
PROPOSAL 1:
Make no changes to the text of the paragraph beginning "A relative-path
reference ..."
PROPOSAL 2:
Boil the second paragraph, beginning "Every IRI reference" down to this
much:
***
IRI that are not relative-path references must not reference files inside a
package. Relative-path references that lead beyond the package at any point
along the path must not reference files inside any package.
***
OBSERVATION 1. The "special processing" observation goes too far in
considering how implementations work. I believe that the above makes it
clear enough that only the processor that has the package open can provide
the within-package navigation, but once a reference leads beyond a package,
by whatever means, processing can be delegated to the host system using the
(suitably-adjusted) IRI/URI.
OBSERVATION 2. I would love to see 17.5 cleaned up better than this, but
that involves addressing the portion that begins "The following restrictions
exist ..." and I think that takes us too far from the problem at hand.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:]
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200809/msg00089.html
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 01:53
To:
Subject: [office] Text for 17.5?
Greetings!
After Michael's last post on this issue I don't know if we were all
stunned into silence or if there is general agreement so I thought I
would ask.
The text as I now understand the proposal (subject to correction) is:
*****
A relative-path reference (as defined in ?4.2 of [RFC3986], except
that it may contain the additional characters that are allowed in IRI
references [RFC3987]) that occurs in a file that is contained in a
package has to be resolved exactly as it would be resolved if the whole
package gets unzipped into a directory at its current location. The base
IRI for resolving relative-path references is the one that has to be
used to retrieve the (unzipped) file that contains the relative-path
reference.
Every IRI reference that is not a relative-path reference does not need
any special processing. Absolute-paths can not reference files inside a
package. IRI references inside a package may address anything
addressable by an IRI that is outside of a package or within the same
package,
but no IRI outside of a package may address any location within any
package.
****
[ ... ]
