[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] XCF fragment
I took a quick look and I interpret it as 5.1.3 applies and we are ok (it belongs to CGM), but then maybe I don't completely understand the rfc here. Has anyone else had a chance to look at it? thx..Dave -----Original Message----- From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 3:48 PM To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] XCF fragment Volunteer needed... Not trying to be a trouble-maker but I'm trying to ensure that our desired outcome ("CGM") is RFC2936 compliant. RFC2396 has a set of rules for resolving relative URLs. See section 5.1: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt As I read this, 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 don't apply. Does 5.1.3 apply? -- If 'yes', then does "base document" mean the HTML document containing the URL which has the xcfterm fragment (which contains the xcfurl), or is it the CGM document that is de-referenced by the base portion of the URL which has the xcfterm fragment (which contains the xcfurl)? If CGM, we're fine. If HTML, then we have a problem (we all want it to be CGM). -- If 'no', then 5.1.4 applies and the rule is whatever we write into WebCGM 2.0 (which we agree should be: CGM). I'd like another pair of eyes (and brain!) to read and give an interpretation. You may also want to have a look at 3.5 (Fragments), for clues. Btw, rfc2396 is updated by rfc3986, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt which uses slightly different wording in 5.1.3. We will almost certainly have to make that update in WebCGM 2.0, so you might just want to start with that document. Regards, -Lofton. At 11:08 AM 6/3/2005 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote: >I also agree (w/ you and Benoit) that #2 makes the most sense. > >[...] > >At 02:49 PM 6/1/2005 +0200, =?us-ascii?Q?Dieter__Weidenbruck?= wrote: >>All, >> >>I have a question regarding the usage of XCF fragments. >>Consider the following URL: >> >> >>http://www.cgmopen.org/mycgm.cgm#xcf(myxcf.xml) >> >>This link resides on an HTML page located at >> >>http://www.itedo.com/mytest.html >> >> >>So the cgm URL is not relative to the html, however, the xml URL >>is a relative one. >> >>Question: >>where is the XML file? >> >>1. http://www.itedo.com/myxcf.xml (relative to html file) >>2. http://www.cgmopen.org/myxcf.xml (relative to cgm file) >> >>Suggestion: 2. >> >>Reason: >>a relative URL inside the CGM in a linkURI would be considered relative to >>the CGM file as well. >>no strong preference, but it needs to be resolved. >> >>Regards, >>Dieter
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]