W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > March 2006

Joining two relative URIs (public-ietf-w3c-draft)

From: Konrad Lanz <Konrad.Lanz@iaik.tugraz.at>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:56:36 +0100
Message-ID: <4422C534.9020808@iaik.tugraz.at>
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Cc: Peter Lipp <peter.lipp@iaik.tugraz.at>, Martin Centner <mcentner@iaik.tugraz.at>
Dear all,

the email below is a draft to be sent as 
"mailto:public-ietf-w3c@w3.org?cc=uri-ig@w3.org&subject=Joining two 
relative URIs 
<mailto:public-ietf-w3c@w3.org?cc=uri-ig@w3.org&subject=Joining%20two%20relative%20URIs>"  
next Monday on behalf of the xml core working group.

best regards
Konrad Lanz

#--- snip ---
Dear T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter,

According to an email by John Boyer 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0004.html> 
we need to apply the inheritance rule 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/#resolution> to xml:base when 
canonicalizing a XPath node-set over a XML document using C14n 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n>'s successor Canonical XML 1.1 
<http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/WD-xml-c14n11>. This can be 
critical when nodes in a document become an orphan. For a simple example 
cf. to the post by Henry S. Thompson 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0036.html> 
where critical xml:base context could be lost by for instance applying 
an XPath-Filter <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/#sec-XPath>(2.0 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-filter2/>).

Consider the following

<a>
  <b xml:base="test1/somefile1.ext#abc?def">
    <c xml:base="test2/somefile2.ext"/>
  </b>
</a> 

with the 'b' being clipped out, we'd get

<a>
   
     <c xml:base="test1/test2/somefile2.ext"/>
  
</a> 

and the relevant information of xml:base gets pushed down to the child nodes.

If b's xml:base was an absolute URI one would absolutize using the 
algorithm in 5.2 in RFC 2396 <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt>. 
However the example above requires the joining of two relative URIs 
which we believe is not defined in RFC 2396 
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt>. It may nevertheless be defined in 
RFC 3986 <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt> in section "5.2. Relative 
Resolution" by applying applying the algorithm in 5.2 ignoring the note 
"that only the scheme component is required to be present in a base URI".

Our question is: Is this covered in the scope of RFC 3986 
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt> ?

The group currently discusses the resolution above as an alternative to 
adapting section 5.2 step 6 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2006Mar/0041.html> 
of RFC 2396 <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt> (currently referenced 
in xml base <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/#resolution> and C14n) 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n> or not to apply inheritance rules 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/#resolution> at all when nodes in a 
document become an orphan.

Your comments are greatly appreciated.
best regards on behalf of the xml-core-group

Konrad Lanz

#--- snip ---

-- 
Konrad Lanz, IAIK/SIC - Graz University of Technology
Inffeldgasse 16a, 8010 Graz, Austria
Tel: +43 316 873 5547
Fax: +43 316 873 5520
https://www.iaik.tugraz.at/aboutus/people/lanz
http://jce.iaik.tugraz.at

Certificate chain (including the EuroPKI root certificate):
https://europki.iaik.at/ca/europki-at/cert_download.htm





Received on Thursday, 23 March 2006 15:56:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:33 GMT