<454C3572-0594-4D66-9472-968A0E78809D@josephholsten.com>
Current votes: None.
On Feb 23, 2010, at 3:27 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 23.02.2010 10:08, Joseph Holsten wrote: >> On Feb 22, 2010, at 8:26 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> 1) >>>=20 >>> "7. Relative "about" URIs >>>=20 >>> As "about" URIs do not use a hierarchical path, relative "about" = URIs >>> are not permitted." >>>=20 >>> I think this is misleading. >>>=20 >>> A relative reference, as defined = in<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.4.2>, does = not contain a URI scheme (by definition). So it's meaningless to talk = about the scheme of a reference. >>>=20 >>> In doubt, just drop the paragraph. >>=20 >> It's meaningless, but there are a few issues. First, as a stupid = implementor writing a URI parser and handler, I'm used to having to deal = with relative URIs. Obviously, I'm going to be confused about the right = thing to do is. I want to tell these people, "Don't worry, you don't = have to deal with relative about URIs, they don't exist." >=20 > Well, there aren't relative URIs. They are called "relative = references". They do not have a scheme. >=20 > So the question needs to be rephrased as: "what does happen when I = resolve a relative reference against an "about" URI"? The answer is the = same for all URIs (because generic URI processors need to be able to do = this regardless the scheme), and the answer is in RFC 3986, Section 5 = (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.5>). I learn something new every day. Looks like I just swiped this from RFC = 2397. Trouble is, I'm seriously confused as to whether about URIs can or can't = have relative references. So far as I can tell, RFC 3986 =A74.4 says the = handling of short same-document references (e.g. #SectionOne) is = formally defined in =A75.2.2. But =A7D.2 says: "The determination of whether a URI reference is a same-document = reference has been decoupled from the URI parser, simplifying the URI = processing interface within applications in a way consistent with the = internal architecture of deployed URI processing implementations. The = determination is now based on comparison to the base URI after = transforming a reference to absolute form, rather than on the format of = the reference itself. This change may result in more references being = considered "same-document" under this specification than there would be = under the rules given in RFC 2396, especially when normalization is used = to reduce aliases. However, it does not change the status of existing = same-document references." Which makes me think I'm wrong. Surely there is a way for = non-hierarchical URIs to handle same-document references. Obviously the = recomposition function in =A75.3 only generates hierarchical URIs. I = want to say this is a bug in RFC 3986, but that seems hard to believe. I'm beginning to think the reason I added that line was to remind myself = that this is hard to verify. Links: RFC 2397. The "data" URL scheme, http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2397 RFC 3986 =A74.4. Same-Document Reference, = http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.4.4 RFC 3986 =A75.3. Component Recomposition, = http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.5.3 RFC 3986 =A7D.2. Modifications. = http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.D.2 -- j=