[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] 17.5 on IRIs
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]