Wendy, I see no reason to restrict to absolute URIs.
Currently section 6.7.2 of the ALTO protocol spec states: uri A URI at which the ALTO Server provides one or more Information Resources, or an Information Resource Directory indicating additional Information Resources. Would adding a reference to section 4.1 of RFC3986 be sufficient, e.g. uri A URI reference (as per section 4.1 of [RFC3986] to one or more Information Resources, or an Information Resource Directory indicating additional Information Resources. Ben On 11 Feb 2013, at 16:53, Wendy Roome wrote: > In general URIs can be relative as well as absolute. So if an ALTO > server's resource directory has the URI > "http://alto.example.com/directory", directory entries like > { "uri" : "/networkmap", ....} > or > { "uri" : "costmap/num/routingcost", ...} > should be legal and should resolve to "http://alto.example.com/networkmap" > and "http://alto.example.com/costmap/num/routingcost", respectively. > > However, our examples only use absolute URIs. As far as I can tell, draft > 13 doesn't say anything about relative URIs. > > So I think we should either explicitly allow relative URIs -- and use them > in examples in the RFC and in the next interop -- or else forbid them. > That would affect Sections 6.7.2 & 6.7.3. > > Comments? > > - Wendy Roome > > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > alto@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto _______________________________________________ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto