Re: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: relative URIs in 'linkuri'

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Hi Benoit,

At 12:15 PM 10/4/2005 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
> Maybe this was discussed on the
> telecon; 

Yes, and resolved as recommended in...
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200509/msg00101.html

This led to the change that 3.1.1.5 mentions absolute and relative,
clarifies how 'relative' is resolved (in the obvious manner). 
Further, 3.2.2.3 needs no change -- we thought it was obvious, if
#myObjId is the entire URI in a linkuri 1st parameter within a
WebCGM instance, that it is resolved relative to that WebCGM
instance.

Finally, no one raised the question about clarifying the same stuff in
DOM transaction or XCF application -- I think everyone is comfortable
that the concept is clear, as you explain below, that either of those two
scenarios "virtually" replace the 'linkuri' in the WebCGM
instance.

Do you think anything more is needed to close this?  (And if 'yes',
would you please supply the wording?)

-Lofton.

> but here are my thoughts
> anyway...
>
> I don't understand what the problem is; or what is meant by
> 'linkuri'.
> 'linkuri' the WebCGM 1.0/2.0 APS attribute; or <linkuri> element
> of
> the XCF?
>
> If we are talking about the WebCGM 1.0/2.0 APS attribute, then this
> is
> easy, relative URIs should behave in 2.0 liked they behaved in
> WebCGM
> 1.0. I'm sure you'll all agree.
>
> I suspect Dieter was talking about the <linkuri> element of the
> XCF.
> Please don't forget that applying an XCF onto a WebCGM document is
> 'replacing' the existing WebCGM APS attribute values with the new
> ones
> found in the XCF. When an implementation sees:
>
> <grobject apsid="one">
>   <linkuri uri="#myObject" />
> <grobject>
>
> The string '#myObject' is set within the 'one' APS, like so:
> BEGAPS 'one' 'grobject' STLIST;
>   APSATTR 'linkuri' "14 3 '#myObject' '' ''";
>   BEGAPSBODY;
>   ...
> ENDAPS;
>
> And the hyperlinking behavior of such a file should be well defined
> (as per WebCGM 1.0).
>
> Regards,
>
> -- 
>  Benoit  
> mailto:benoit@itedo.com
>
>  
> Monday, September 19, 2005, 6:49:49 PM, Lofton wrote:
>
> LH> Ref: 
> LH>
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200509/msg00093.html
> LH> Comments:  20
> LH> ==========
>
> LH> ISSUE:  how are relative URIs in 'linkuri' 
> resolved?
>
> LH> DISCUSSION:  Dieter writes,
> LH> "something should be added to say that xcfurls can be
> relative but can also
> LH> be absolute. Also, we need to make a comment about relative URLs
> found in
> LH> linkURIs then, the processing there is different, if I remember
> LH> correctly.There it is relative to the container document I
> think."
>
> LH> The first sentence is strictly editorial.  The second is not
> so 
> LH> straightforward.  A 'linkuri' could occur:
> LH> -- in a WebCGM instance;
> LH> -- in DOM script;
> LH> -- in XCF instance.
>
> LH> As I understand it, the container document would be the WebCGM, a
> HTML/JS
> LH> file, the XML file of the XCF.  I don't think we want the
> relative URI of a
> LH> 'linkuri' to resolve to the container document.  For example,
> load this CGM
>
> LH> Container: 
> http://www.example.org/webcgm/myCGM.cgm
> LH> linkuri:  #another-obj-in-this-pic
>
> LH> Then we edit the DOM of that already-loaded WebCGM, with this DOM
> script,
> LH> to change that linkuri...
>
> LH> Container: 
> http://www.example.org/domScripts/myDOMtest.html
> LH> linkuri:  #a-third-obj-in-this-pic
>
> LH> I don't think we want the linkuri to all of a sudden be relative
> to
> LH> myDOMtest.html.  Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of
> "container
> LH> document"?  I think we want something like ... relative
> URI in 'linkuri'
> LH> resolves relative to the WebCGM "that contains
> it".  I quoted the latter
> LH> because I'm not quite sure the right way to express it.  But
> ... if the
> LH> 'linkuri' is in a WebCGM, no problem.  If it is in DOM script
> or XCF ...
> LH> well, the 'linkuri' in a sense is really contained in the WebCGM,
> and those
> LH> (DOM script / XCF) are just editing directives that are being
> applied, to
> LH> change the 'linkuri' value in the WebCGM.
>
> LH> RECOMMENDATION:  relative URI in 'linkuri' resolves relative
> to the WebCGM
> LH> "that contains it".
>
> LH> Discussion?  (Suggestions for the best way to say
> it?)
>
> LH> Regards,
> LH> -Lofton.