W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: [Uri-review] ACTION-103 Follow up on the about: scheme Registration

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:08:28 +0100
Message-ID: <4B83D34C.3050200@gmx.de>
To: Joseph Holsten <joseph@josephholsten.com>
CC: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, uri-review@ietf.org, public-html <public-html@w3.org>, URI <uri@w3.org>
On 23.02.2010 12:34, Joseph Holsten wrote:
> I learn something new every day. Looks like I just swiped this from RFC 2397.
> ...

You mean:

"The "data" URL scheme has no relative URL forms."

? Understood. I may be wrong about all of this, but this is misleading 
as well, and should be corrected in a future version.

> Trouble is, I'm seriously confused as to whether about URIs can or can't have relative references...
You can't forbid it. That being said, they may not do what you want them 
to do, so you could discourage their use.

> So far as I can tell, RFC 3986 4.4 says the handling of short same-document references (e.g. #SectionOne) is formally defined in 5.2.2. But D.2 says:

Where does it say that?

> "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 5.3 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.
> ...

OK, let's consider

Base URI:  <about:config>

Reference: <#foo>

According to RFC 3986, Section 5, these are parsed into the components 
scheme, authority, path, query, fragment:

Base URI: ("about", undefined, "config", undefined, undefined)

Reference: (undefined, undefined, undefined, undefined, "foo")

According to 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.5.2.2>, the 
resulting resolved URI would have the following components:

("about", undefined, "config", undefined, "foo")

Recomposition according to 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.5.3> yields:

	<about:config#foo>

So I don't see a problem here. Am I getting this wrong?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 13:09:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:02 GMT