Hiya,
Ah, ok I get it now. I'll look back at that again,
Ta,
S
On 06/12/2012 11:43 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> Hello Stephen,
>
> On 2012/06/09 10:45, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>> On 06/09/2012 01:43 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>>> It's a naming
>>> hierarchy. My main concern is whether the relative reference algorithm
>>> described in section 5/4.2 of RFC 3986. In particular take a look at the
>>> last part of section 1.2 of RFC 3986 regarding the disallowing of
>>> /. Consider how you want relative references in an HTML document
>>> resolved through a ni: URI to work. I don't think your use of authority
>>> provides good results. However I'm not sure that better results would be
>>> achieved without hierarchy. I hope though that these comments will help
>>> inject some ways of reasoning about authority that are less mystical and
>>> that lead to more practical discussion.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> I think your comment about relative URIs is fair and we maybe ought
>> say there are no such things for ni URIs. (Or however that kind of
>> thing is stated best).
>
> You can't say that. It's perfectly okay to have an HTML document like this:
>
> <html>
> <head>
> <title>ni: relative URI test</title>
> <base href="ni://example.com">
> </head>
>
> <body>
> <p>Please check <a href="sha-256;f4OxZX...">this document</a>.
> And <a href="sha-256;UyaQV...">this other document</a>.
> And <a href="sha-256-128;...">this third document</a>.
> </p>
> </body>
> </html>
>
> ("..." used for brevity). What the browser will try to interpret when
> the links are activated is:
> ni://example.com/sha-256;f4OxZX...
> ni://example.com/sha-256;UyaQV...
> ni://example.com/sha-256-128;...
>
> If you don't think that makes sense, then you might just leave it to
> users to not use it that way. On the other hand, if you think that's
> actively harmful (I couldn't come up with a reason for that), then you
> have to change to the form without //.
>
> [Well, actual browser behavior is a bit more mixed:
>
> IE does what's explained above, and tries to go to the address, but says
> that this page can't be displayed.
>
> Safari uses the above resolved URIs when asked to copy the link, and
> also tries to follow the link saying that the page can't be opened.
>
> Mozilla doesn't even show the link texts as links, nor allows to
> activate them, probably because it decides that it doesn't want to
> disappoint the user when she clicks.
>
> Chrome shows the underlined links, but doesn't want to show any
> destination when hoovering. When activating, it goes to about:blank.
>
> Opera shows and tries to go to ni://sha-256;f4OxZX... and similar, i.e.
> it seems to drop the authority, possibly because it doesn't have ni:
> registered as a hierarchical scheme. But that would be fixed when the
> scheme is getting implemented.]
>
>> I guess a sentence or two about relative URIs would be worthwhile
>> and I'll ponder that.
>
> Yes, please do. I'm willing to check it.
>
> Regards, Martin.
>
>