Re: [office-comment] Comments on ODF 1.0 Errata 01 Committee Draft 02

["MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>]

> > The phrase "All other kinds of IRI references, namely the ones that
> > start with a schema (like http:), an authority (i.e., //) or an 
> > absolute-path (i.e., /) " in the draft errata means either
> > 
> > 1) IRI references that start with a scheme  (like http:),
> > 2) IRI references that start with an authority (i.e., //), or
> > 3) IRI references that start with an absolute-path (i.e., /) 
> 
> Yes, but it also includes any other IRI reference that is not a relative 
> path.

I now understand your point.  Yes, the proposed wording does 
enumerate all IRI references that are not relative-path references.

However, please replace "All other kinds of IRI references, namely the
ones that start with a schema (like http:), an authority (i.e., //) or
an absolute-path (i.e., /) " by "Every IRI reference that 
is not a relative-path reference".  There is no point in 
mentioning schemes, authorities, etc. here.

It appears that "This means that absolute-paths..." in the proposed
errata is not very satisfactory, since network-path references are not 
mentioned.


> The preceding paragraph is:
> 
> "A relative-path reference (as described in ァ6.5 of [RFC3987]) that 
> occurs in a file that is contained in a package has to be resolved 
> exactly as it would be resolved if the whole package gets unzipped into 
> a directory at its current location. The base IRI for resolving 
> relative-path references is the one that has to be used to retrieve the 
> (unzipped) file that contains the relative-path reference. "
> 
> It does not include the term "relative reference", but only 
> "relative-path reference". Therefore, the paragraph in question includes 
> all kind of IRIs that are not "relative path-references". This includes 
> absolute references, but also all kind of relative references that are 
> not relative path-references.

Agreed.

> So, in my opinion the problem is not that paragraph, but the reference 
> to 6.5 of RFC3987.
> 
> RFC3986 and its predecessors are defining terms like "relative 
> path-reference" or "network-path" references, and a "relative 
> path-reference" is exactly the kind of URI/IRI that requires a special 
> processing. But RFC3986 is about URIs. ODF supports IRIs as described by 
> RFC3987. RFC3987 unfortunately does define these terms, and I could also 
> not find any counterparts for them.
> 
> Maybe we should say:
> 
> "A relative-path reference (as defined in ァ4.2 of [RFC3986], except that 
> it may contain the additional characters that are allowed in IRI
> references [RFC3987]) that occurs in a file that is contained in a 
> package has to be resolved exactly [...]"

This looks fine to me.



Cheers,
-- 
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>