Re: [office] 17.5 on IRIs

[Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>]

Patrick,

On 22.09.08 18:55, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> To continue the discussion from the call this morning, I would call 
> everyone's attention to a prior suggestion by Michael (I overlooked this):
> 
>> *Every IRI reference that is not a relative-path reference does* not
>> > need any special processing. This especially means that absolute-paths
>> > do not reference files inside the package, but within the hierarchy the
>> > package is contained in, for instance the file system. IRI references
>> > inside a package may leave the package, but once they have left the
>> > package, they never can return into the package or another one.

In the resolution of the comment that I have discussed with Murata-san, 
there is also a change to the previous paragraph. The new text is:

****
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 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.

*Every IRI reference that is not a relative-path reference does* not
need any special processing. This especially means that absolute-paths
do not reference files inside the package, but within the hierarchy the
package is contained in, for instance the file system. IRI references
inside a package may leave the package, but once they have left the
package, they never can return into the package or another one.
****

This change is important, because it clarifies what we mean by a 
relative-path reference. A relative-path reference is just a relative 
path, and differs from the term relative URI. It is one kind of a 
relative URI, but there are others. For instance, a URI starting with a 
"/" is a relative URI, but it is not a relative path.


> 
> OK, having gone the long way around (apologies but I wanted it to be 
> clear that remarks from others and not any cleverness on my part has 
> resulted in the following) here is what I would propose to "fix" the 
> paragraph in question:

I'm not sure which part of the paragraph is addressed by the comment for 
which we a looking for a resolution, but have no objections to improve 
the language. Your 2nd suggestion sounds okay for me, except that I 
would add that IRI may also address files within the same package. That is:

****
Every IRI reference that is not a relative-path reference does not need
Any special processing. Absolute-paths can not reference files inside a
package. IRI references inside a package may address anything
addressable by an IRI that is outside of a package *or within the same 
package*, but no IRI outside of a package may address any location 
within any package.
****

Michael
> 
> ****
> Every IRI reference that is not a relative-path reference does not need 
> any special processing. Absolute-paths can not reference files inside a 
> package, but may, for instance, address packages that are held in a file 
> hierarchy. IRI references inside a package may address anything 
> addressable by an IRI that is outside of a package, but no IRI outside 
> of a package may address any location within any package.
> ****
> 
> A bit wordy for me and I would suggest further edits on the second 
> sentence, now that I suspect we know what was meant and to replace the 
> paragraph with:
> 
> ****
> Every IRI reference that is not a relative-path reference does not need 
> any special processing. Absolute-paths can not reference files inside a 
> package. IRI references inside a package may address anything 
> addressable by an IRI that is outside of a package, but no IRI outside 
> of a package may address any location within any package
> ****
> 
> The second half of the third sentence strikes me as redundant with the 
> second sentence. So, my personal preference would be:
> 
> ****
> Every IRI reference that is not a relative-path reference does not need 
> any special processing. An absolute-path IRI can not reference files 
> inside a package. IRI references inside a package may address anything 
> addressable by an IRI that is outside of a package.
> ****
> 
> Note that I started to say "that is outside of *the* package" to make 
> reference to the package containing the IRI but that would be wrong 
> because we don't want absolute IRIs addressing files in *any* package.
> 
> Hope everyone is having a great day!
> 
> Patrick
> 


-- 
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering