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).