xri-editors message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Interpretation of "relative XRIs"
- From: "Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com>
- To: "'xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org'" <xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:48:08 -0700
I still think I
don't quite follow the rules w/r/t to "relative" XRIs.
Is it fair to say
that a relative XRI is simply one that doesn't specify the naming authority in
which it is defined? So, for example, the way to "resolve" a relative XRI is
simply to have a "default" name authority in your resolver?
If so, how is this different from the *
GCS
I'm still concerned
about our use of "relative" in this case. This is different from "relative" in
the URI sense, I think, in that, in 2396land, a relative URI is relative to the
context in which it is presented (ie an HTML file, a MIME wrapper, etc, or in a
document with XML Base data). We mean something else by "relative" - its not
relative to the context in which the relative XRI is presented - its relative to
the client resolver!
If this is true, I
would really like to not call this "relative", or at least call it
"client-relative" or something more specific.
On the other hand,
if I'm still not getting relativity, it could use more description (and I
know its marked as being on Dave's plate to describe).
-Gabe
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]