Re: [cgmo-webcgm] Resolving relative URIs

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Hi Benoit, All --

At 08:17 AM 9/1/2005 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
>[...]
>Section 3.1.1.5 Resolving relative URIs
>
>says the following:
>
>For the 'xcfurl' parameter of the xterm production in the above EBNF,
>a relative URI is resolved relative to the WebCGM instance with which
>the XML Companion File is a companion -- i.e. relative to the base
>part of the URI containing the fragment -- rather than relative to the
>file containing the URI reference (e.g., a HTML file).
>
>I think a similar statement (or a link to this one) should be included
>in the applyCompanionFile() method. It doesn't make much sense for the
>'xcfurl' parameter to use the above rule and for applyCompanionFile
>not to say anything about relative URIs.
>
>Proposal:
>Clarify applyCompanionFile() wording so that relative URIs are
>relative to the WebCGM instance instead of the HTML file.

This is sensible.  I don't think it rises to the level of an 
ISSUE.  Therefore I will make the change unless someone objects.

OBJECTIONS?  (Going once, going twice, ...)

Other.  Looking at the description of applyCompanionFile (in 5.7.5), the 
second sentence begins with, "If companion information...".  That is 
undefined.  I propose to change "companion information to 
"industry-specific metadata..." or "application-specific metadata...", and 
link the phrase to 4.2.2, which starts right off describing it.

Okay?

-Lofton.