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!
-Gabe
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:]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003
1:56 PM
To: 'Wachob, Gabe';
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?
Dave
-----Original
Message-----
From: Wachob,
Gabe [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 1:48
PM
To:
''
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).
-Gabe
