Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] Resolving relative URIs

[Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>]

Okay to all your points.

-- 
 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com

 
Thursday, September 1, 2005, 9:41:41 AM, Lofton wrote:

LH> Hi Benoit, All --

LH> 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.

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

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

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

LH> Okay?

LH> -Lofton.