Re: Relative URI references

[Dare Obasanjo <kpako@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Sam Ruby <rubys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > If the consensus is that HTTP URLs should be
> allowed
> > for IDs then relative URIs should be banned. If a
> > specific URI scheme is mandated then it should be
> one
> > that doesn't have a relative URI scheme. Either
> way
> > relative URIs for IDs are a bad idea. 
> 
>  From RFC 2396, section 1.4, paragraph 2:
> 
>      This document defines a scheme-independent
> `relative' form of URI
>      reference that can be used in conjunction with
> a `base' URI (of a
>      hierarchical scheme) to produce another URI.
> 
> HTTP may make scheme specific URI comparisons
> harder, but it certainly 
> does not make relative URI resolution any easier or
> harder.

Why do you keep bringing up HTTP? The issue I have is
with relative URIs for IDs. I don't care if Atom
mandates HTTP, FTP or NNTP as the URI scheme for IDs
in this case, relative URIs should not be allowed in
any case. 

=====
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #25
No matter how well it would perform, I will never construct any sort of machinery which is completely indestructible except for one small and virtually inaccessible vulnerable spot.


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail