That’s an interesting question. The
way I read the normative rules in 2396, it would actually resolve to xri:@foobar,
but the example in appendix C makes it clear that the desired result is xri:@foo/bar.
To answer your question, though, the
proposed text I’m submitting would always append after a “/”,
never after a “.”. I’m glad you brought this up because it’s
fairly important to understand so that dot segments are used sanely in a base
XRI. Take this example.
Base: xri://www.foo.com/a.b.c
Relative reference: d.e.f
Resolved XRI: xri://www.foo.com/d.e.f
Base: xri://www.foo.com/a/b/c
Relative reference: d.e.f
Resolved XRI: xri://www.foo.com/a/b/d.e.f
Another point to note (and that naturally
follows) is that . and .. move up slash delimited segments, not dot delimited
segments.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Wachob, Gabe
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003
2:00 PM
To: 'Dave McAlpin'; Wachob, Gabe;
Subject: RE: [xri-editors]
Interpretation of "relative XRIs"
I'd really like the 2396
interpretation to be the case. I just wanted to make sure.
So the * gcs really is
the "use default naming authority" and the relative xri form is
really the 2396 meaning, which I interpret (like you) to basically mean that to
get a "non-relative" xri from a relative XRI, you syntactically
append something before the relative XRI. Where that "something"
comes from is defined generally in 2396 (but ends up depending on how you got
the relative XRI in the first place).
Great, fine. Just needed
clarification and amplification. I want this specifically said in the spec!
-Gabe
P.S. Why would
"xri:@foo" + "bar" make "xri:@foo/bar" ? Why not
"xri:@foo.bar"? Is the insertion of the "/" specified in
2396?
-----Original
Message-----
From: Dave McAlpin
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003
1:56 PM
To: 'Wachob, Gabe';
Subject: RE: [xri-editors]
Interpretation of "relative XRIs"
I understood relative in
exactly the same sense as it’s used in 2396. If you have a relative
reference “bar” and a base XRI “xri:@foo”, how to you
convert the relative reference into the fully qualified XRI
“xri:@foo/bar”? That’s the question I’m attempting to
answer. Is that not what you have in mind Gabe?
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Wachob, Gabe
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003
1:48 PM
To:
''
Subject: [xri-editors]
Interpretation of "relative XRIs"
I still think I don't quite follow
the rules w/r/t to "relative" XRIs.
Is it fair to say that a relative
XRI is simply one that doesn't specify the naming authority in which it is
defined? So, for example, the way to "resolve" a relative XRI is
simply to have a "default" name authority in your resolver?
If so, how is this different from
the * GCS
I'm still concerned about our use of
"relative" in this case. This is different from "relative"
in the URI sense, I think, in that, in 2396land, a relative URI is relative to
the context in which it is presented (ie an HTML file, a MIME wrapper, etc, or
in a document with XML Base data). We mean something else by
"relative" - its not relative to the context in which the relative
XRI is presented - its relative to the client resolver!
If this is true, I would really like
to not call this "relative", or at least call it
"client-relative" or something more specific.
On the other hand, if I'm still not
getting relativity, it could use more description (and I know its marked
as being on Dave's plate to describe).
-Gabe
