- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:05:55 +0200
- To: marcosc@opera.com
- CC: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
Hi Marcos, Marcos Caceres wrote: > Hi Francois, > Just to be clear, I made the change you requested (relative and abs > URIs behave exactly the same). I think that concludes all issues > raised in this thread. Absolutely! > For the Disposition of Comments, can we get your acknowledgment that > you are satisfied? I am satisfied! :-) Many thanks, Francois. > > Kind regards, > Marcos > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Robin Berjon<robin@berjon.com> wrote: >> On Jul 7, 2009, at 15:46 , Marcos Caceres wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Robin Berjon<robin@berjon.com> wrote: >>>> Or at least, not >>>> without deciding that we have our own rules for relative URI reference >>>> absolutisation, which I fervently hope we don't. >>> I think we all agree we want URIs to behave as they do in browsers. >> I hoped we would :) >> >>>> I think that there are two ways to resolve this comment: >>>> >>>> - drop the distinction that's in the spec between /foo and foo in >>>> config.xml >>> I'm ok to do this. It now reads: >>> >>> "If the path starts with a U+002F SOLIDUS (e.g., "/style/master.css"), >>> meaning that the path is an Zip absolute path, then remove the first >>> U+002F SOLIDUS from path. " >>> >>> The algorithm continues as normal (i18n is applied, etc.) and no >>> longer is the behavior different (i.e., the root of the widget package >>> is not searched first, but last). >>> >>> So, this means that the behavior of both "/abc" and "abc" are now >>> exactly the same. >> That's fine by me. >> >>>> - make it very clear that that distinction exists only in config.xml >>>> (which >>>> uses paths, not URIs) >>> If they are paths or not depends on the processing model. But yes, the >>> current model assumes paths. >> Right. The interesting thing here is that this means that the processing is >> merely clarified. >> >>>> Since I don't personally see a strong use case for the distinction, I'm >>>> happy either way. >>> I do see strong need to sort this out. It might be that in the future, >>> for whatever reason, we want to treat these as URIs. For example, >>> allowing content@src to point to a document on the Web. >> That could happen, yes. And when it does, whatever URIs that appear in there >> will be absolute I would expect (or there would be some other mechanism >> providing a base). If so, then there will be a way to distinguish between >> absolute URI references (it starts with a scheme) or to distinguish based on >> the use of the previously mentioned other mechanism. Or we could use another >> attribute (say content/@href). I agree it could be useful going forward, but >> I don't believe we've painted ourselves into a corner. >> >>> _HOWEVER_, we can deal with this in the future. Lets agree that this >>> is the way it's going to work for now. >> +1 >> >> -- >> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ >> Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 16:06:37 UTC