Re: [alto] Should we allow relative URIs in resource directories?

2013-02-15 Thread Vijay K. Gurbani
[As individual contributor] On 02/15/2013 12:06 AM, Richard Alimi wrote: +1 for allowing relative URIs. If there are no dissenting opinions, we'll update the draft with Ben's proposed text. Richard: That is fine. Originally I was going to state that we adopt absolute URIs, but I must admit t

Re: [alto] Should we allow relative URIs in resource directories?

2013-02-15 Thread Wendy Roome
n Niven-Jenkins Cc: Bill Roome , "alto@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [alto] Should we allow relative URIs in resource directories? On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: > Wendy, > > On 13 Feb 2013, at 14:38, Wendy Roome wrote: > >> > RFC 3986

Re: [alto] Should we allow relative URIs in resource directories?

2013-02-14 Thread Richard Alimi
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: > Wendy, > > On 13 Feb 2013, at 14:38, Wendy Roome wrote: > > > RFC 3986 does define relative URIs, so technically that's sufficient. But > > I think that's like a lawyer burying some critical information -- like > > "double every amount

Re: [alto] Should we allow relative URIs in resource directories?

2013-02-13 Thread Ben Niven-Jenkins
Wendy, On 13 Feb 2013, at 14:38, Wendy Roome wrote: > RFC 3986 does define relative URIs, so technically that's sufficient. But > I think that's like a lawyer burying some critical information -- like > "double every amount that you owe us" -- in tiny type in a footnote. > Legal, but sleazy. > >

Re: [alto] Should we allow relative URIs in resource directories?

2013-02-13 Thread Wendy Roome
ome On 02/12/2013 15:00, "alto-requ...@ietf.org" wrote: >Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:44:48 + >From: "Diego R. Lopez" >Subject: Re: [alto] Should we allow relative URIs in resource > directories? >Hi, > >I think allowing only absolute URIs w

Re: [alto] Should we allow relative URIs in resource directories?

2013-02-13 Thread Wendy Roome
12 Feb 2013 14:33:10 + >From: Ben Niven-Jenkins >Subject: Re: [alto] Should we allow relative URIs in resource > directories? >Message-ID: <0d1494c5-2154-43e0-886b-29df8402b...@niven-jenkins.co.uk> > >Wendy, > >I see no reason to restrict to absolute URIs. >

Re: [alto] Should we allow relative URIs in resource directories?

2013-02-12 Thread Diego R. Lopez
Hi, I think allowing only absolute URIs would translate into simpler mechanisms to build them, and better understanding by human readers trying to debug based on ALTO outputs, but I acknowledge these are limited advantages if there are any other reasons for allowing relative URIs. Be goode, O

Re: [alto] Should we allow relative URIs in resource directories?

2013-02-12 Thread Ben Niven-Jenkins
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 a

[alto] Should we allow relative URIs in resource directories?

2013-02-11 Thread Wendy Roome
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.