|Wachob, Gabe||Jul 2, 2003 1:32 pm|
|Dave McAlpin||Jul 2, 2003 1:39 pm|
|Wachob, Gabe||Jul 2, 2003 1:44 pm|
|Dave McAlpin||Jul 2, 2003 1:59 pm|
|Dave McAlpin||Jul 2, 2003 2:09 pm|
|Wachob, Gabe||Jul 2, 2003 2:22 pm|
|Dave McAlpin||Jul 2, 2003 2:32 pm||.doc|
|Drummond Reed||Jul 2, 2003 6:23 pm|
|Dave McAlpin||Jul 2, 2003 7:03 pm||.bin|
|Dave McAlpin||Jul 3, 2003 9:09 am|
|Subject:||RE: [xri-editors] Interpretation of "relative XRIs"|
|From:||Wachob, Gabe (gwac...@visa.com)|
|Date:||Jul 2, 2003 1:44:37 pm|
I'd really like the 2396 interpretation to be the case. I just wanted to make sure.
So the * gcs really is the "use default naming authority" and the relative xri form is really the 2396 meaning, which I interpret (like you) to basically mean that to get a "non-relative" xri from a relative XRI, you syntactically append something before the relative XRI. Where that "something" comes from is defined generally in 2396 (but ends up depending on how you got the relative XRI in the first place).
Great, fine. Just needed clarification and amplification. I want this specifically said in the spec!
P.S. Why would "xri:@foo" + "bar" make "xri:@foo/bar" ? Why not "xri:@foo.bar"? Is the insertion of the "/" specified in 2396?
-----Original Message----- From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:dave...@epokinc.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 1:56 PM To: 'Wachob, Gabe'; xri-...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Interpretation of "relative XRIs"
I understood relative in exactly the same sense as it's used in 2396. If you have a relative reference "bar" and a base XRI "xri:@foo", how to you convert the relative reference into the fully qualified XRI "xri:@foo/bar"? That's the question I'm attempting to answer. Is that not what you have in mind Gabe?
-----Original Message----- From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwac...@visa.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 1:48 PM To: 'xri-...@lists.oasis-open.org' Subject: [xri-editors] Interpretation of "relative XRIs"
I still think I don't quite follow the rules w/r/t to "relative" XRIs.
Is it fair to say that a relative XRI is simply one that doesn't specify the naming authority in which it is defined? So, for example, the way to "resolve" a relative XRI is simply to have a "default" name authority in your resolver?
If so, how is this different from the * GCS
I'm still concerned about our use of "relative" in this case. This is different from "relative" in the URI sense, I think, in that, in 2396land, a relative URI is relative to the context in which it is presented (ie an HTML file, a MIME wrapper, etc, or in a document with XML Base data). We mean something else by "relative" - its not relative to the context in which the relative XRI is presented - its relative to the client resolver!
If this is true, I would really like to not call this "relative", or at least call it "client-relative" or something more specific.
On the other hand, if I'm still not getting relativity, it could use more description (and I know its marked as being on Dave's plate to describe).