W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2003

RE: AFTF requirements, post-2003/02/07 telcon

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:21:50 -0800
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <jones@research.att.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004901c2d6c2$26460e00$230ba8c0@beasys.com>

Sorry to drag this on.

I'm still confused about what you mean.  On the web, resources are
identified by URIs.  Not just by absolute URIs.

I don't understand the point of requirement.  I had though that you meant to
say "Any URIs used to refer to attachment resources must be absolute".  That
is, it's a constraint upon strings that have type URI.  But you are also
saying that you will allow relative resource identifiers in the later part
of your message.

Are you trying to say something like "URI strings of the full range of rfc
2396 are allowed in anything referring to attachment resources, so long as
they can be absolutized.  That is, a relative URI is allowed if there is a
base URI available for the dereferencing application to use".

You know, I think we are violently agreeing.  I think you want to make sure
that the URIs can be absolutized - not that the actual uri string is always
in absolute URI format - and I'm saying that I want the full range of URIs
available to people creating URI strings.  Which I think are almost the same
thing, just worded differently.

Again, it would be really nice if we had a term for a Absolute URI with or
without a fragment identifier - maybe Absolute URI-Reference - then we could
say All URI References must be dereferencable as an Absolute URI-Reference.
Maybe we should feed this feedback into the editor of rfc2396 (Roy).


> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 7:15 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: jones@research.att.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: AFTF requirements, post-2003/02/07 telcon
> David Orchard asks:
> >> Could you point to the reasoning why my suggestion on
> >> requirement R6 was rejected? I can live without
> >> (and prefer to) relative URIs, but I have a tough
> >> time living without URI-References.
> I think our intention was this.  On the web, resources are named with
> absolute URIs.  For example, my web page might be named:
>         http://example.org/noah.html
> A web resource is never named with a URI reference
>         http://example.org/noah.html#somePara
> So, we believe parts should be named with absolute URIs, like
> any other
> web resources.
> As far as I know, URI References are, as the name implies, a
> mechanism
> available when you REFER to a resource.  THESE WE DO INTEND
> TO ALLOW, as
> far as I know.  So you can indeed when referring to my web page say:
>         http://example.org/noah.html#somePara
> which means:  "find the resource named http://example.org/noah.html,
> determine its media-type, and use that to interpret
> #somepara."  We do
> intend to allow such references in a SOAP envelope, or
> anywhere else, but
> the resource is named with the absolute URI.  Similarly:
>         ./noah.html#somePara
> might resolve to the same document and paragraph, >if a
> suitable base URI
> is known<.  If the binding or other mechanism provides such a
> base, then
> these references will be allowed too.  Still, the name of the
> resource is
> the absolute name.  It's the reference that's richer.  Thanks.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 15:24:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:22 UTC