So the *
gcs really is the "use default naming authority" and the relative xri form is
really the 2396 meaning, which I interpret (like you) to basically mean that
to get a "non-relative" xri from a relative XRI, you syntactically append
something before the relative XRI. Where that "something" comes from is
defined generally in 2396 (but ends up depending on how you got the relative
XRI in the first place).
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 1:56
To: 'Wachob, Gabe';
Subject: RE: [xri-editors]
Interpretation of "relative XRIs"
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
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 1:48
Subject: [xri-editors] Interpretation
of "relative XRIs"
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).