Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Interpretation of "relative XRIs"
I understood relative in exactly the same sense as it’s used in 2396. If you have a relative reference “bar” and a base XRI “xri:@foo”, how to you convert the relative reference into the fully qualified XRI “xri:@foo/bar”? That’s the question I’m attempting to answer. Is that not what you have in mind Gabe?
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).