| | 30 | {{{#!comment |
| | 31 | Edited chat excerpt from #tahoe-lafs on irc.freenode.org regarding above point: |
| | 32 | |
| | 33 | [7:52pm] <Zarutian> zooko: havent heard of new-caps, what are those or will those be? |
| | 34 | [7:54pm] <zooko> Zarutian: http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/wiki/NewCapDesign |
| | 35 | [7:58pm] <Zarutian> zooko: I can answer the question in second point in the section "make them real URIs": the leading // arent required in many uri schemes, it was used to indicate if the uri is hierchical or not. |
| | 36 | [7:58pm] <davidsarah> right, but we want the URIs to be hierarchical |
| | 37 | [7:58pm] <zooko> davidsarah: really? |
| | 38 | [7:58pm] <davidsarah> that's necessary in order for relative URI resolution to work correctly |
| | 39 | [7:59pm] <zooko> I thought // meant that the thing that comes after // is the "authority" for the rest of it which comes after the next /. |
| | 40 | [7:59pm] <davidsarah> e.g. you have a web page with a lafs:// uri as its base, and you want relative links in that page to work |
| | 41 | [7:59pm] <zooko> Would you say that there is an "authority"? Like if that part is a gateway address+port num, or a grid id? |
| | 42 | [7:59pm] <zooko> What about if the cap is the "authority" and then the path from that cap is the "rest of it". :-) |
| | 43 | [8:00pm] <zooko> That matches my model of the world fairly nicely. :-) |
| | 44 | [8:00pm] <davidsarah> whether there is an authority is less important than the resolution algorithm |
| | 45 | [8:00pm] <Zarutian> davidsarah: really? I thought tahoe URI were like paths through linked namespaces in Gnosis/KeyKos/Eros/Capros |
| | 46 | [8:00pm] <davidsarah> URI resolution is purely syntactic |
| | 47 | [8:00pm] » davidsarah finds the relevant spec |
| | 48 | [8:01pm] <davidsarah> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5 |
| | 49 | [8:01pm] <Riastradh> zooko, hmm, perhaps you should talk with Jonathan Rees about that. He knows a lot about URIs, their intent, and their interpretation. |
| | 50 | [8:04pm] <davidsarah> "As relative references can only be used within the context of a hierarchical URI, designers of new URI schemes should use a syntax consistent with the generic syntax's hierarchical components unless there are compelling reasons to forbid relative referencing within that scheme." |
| | 51 | [8:04pm] <davidsarah> in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-1.2.3 |
| | 52 | [8:04pm] <Riastradh> You don't need an authority in order for a URI to have a hierarchical path component. |
| | 53 | [8:04pm] <davidsarah> you do need // though, iirc |
| | 54 | [8:05pm] <Riastradh> No, I don't think so. |
| | 55 | [8:05pm] <davidsarah> "If a URI does not contain an authority component, then the path cannot begin with two slash characters ("//")." |
| | 56 | [8:05pm] <davidsarah> in section 3.3 |
| | 57 | [8:06pm] <Riastradh> URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]; hier-part = "//" authority path-abempty / path-absolute / path-rootless / path-empty |
| | 58 | [8:06pm] <Riastradh> Oh, excuse me. When you said `you do need //', did you mean `you do need // for an authority', or `you do need // for a hierarchical path component'? |
| | 59 | [8:06pm] » zooko reads http://labs.apache.org/webarch/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html#authority |
| | 60 | [8:06pm] <Zarutian> what is an authority component in this context? user:pass@ before the hostname? |
| | 61 | [8:06pm] <Riastradh> Zarutian, the user info, hostname, and port number. |
| | 62 | [8:07pm] <Riastradh> Everything between the // and the first / of the path, if any. |
| | 63 | [8:07pm] <davidsarah> right, usually (although it's strictly speaking scheme-specific) |
| | 64 | [8:08pm] <zooko> So, this makes it sound like you can have paths without an authority: http://labs.apache.org/webarch/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html#path |
| | 65 | [8:08pm] <zooko> Although, FWIW, I still kind of favor letting the cap itself occupy the "authority" slot... |
| | 66 | [8:08pm] <Zarutian> zooko: yurl style? |
| | 67 | [8:08pm] <Riastradh> zooko, see Section 3 `Syntax Components', from which I just quoted a grammar excerpt. |
| | 68 | [8:08pm] » davidsarah was sure that hierarchical uris required // (and therefore an authority), but is having difficulty finding where it says that |
| | 69 | [8:08pm] <zooko> Zarutian: yeah, now that you mention it, a bit like! |
| | 70 | [8:09pm] <zooko> Interesting. :-) |
| | 71 | [8:09pm] <zooko> Riastradh: yes, I was just looking at Section 3 -- what about it? |
| | 72 | [8:09pm] <Riastradh> zooko, the hier-part production rule includes options with paths and no authority. |
| | 73 | [8:10pm] <davidsarah> hmm, maybe this changed since RFC 2396 |
| | 74 | [8:10pm] » davidsarah checks that |
| | 75 | [8:10pm] <davidsarah> yes, it did |
| | 76 | [8:10pm] <davidsarah> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2396#appendix-A |
| | 77 | [8:11pm] <davidsarah> an RFC 2396 hierarchical URI requires an authority; an RFC 3986 one does not |
| | 78 | [8:12pm] <Riastradh> That's not what I see in RFC 2396, davidsarah. absoluteURI = scheme ":" ( hier_part | opaque_part ); hier_part = ( net_path | abs_path ) [ "?" query ]; abs_path = "/" path_segments. |
| | 79 | [8:13pm] <davidsarah> oh, right, I misread it |
| | 80 | [8:13pm] <davidsarah> you're correct |
| | 81 | [8:16pm] <davidsarah> OTOH, if the URI includes a grid id, that would effectively be an authority |
| | 82 | [8:17pm] <zooko> Funny thing, "authority". :-) I would sort of make gateway and cap the authority. |
| | 83 | [8:17pm] <Riastradh> That sounds reasonable to me, provided that the `grid id' is in a sufficiently global namespace such as the DNS. |
| | 84 | [8:17pm] <zooko> But not grid id. |
| | 85 | [8:17pm] <zooko> grid id determines if your attempt to access it will succeed, but does not determine what contents you'll find on a read or whether you can write. |
| | 86 | [8:17pm] <zooko> That's all determined by the cap. |
| | 87 | [8:18pm] <davidsarah> this should be discussed on an archived medium! |
| | 88 | [8:19pm] <zooko> Yes... |
| | 89 | [8:21pm] <zooko> Namely #683, I think. |
| | 90 | [8:21pm] <subm> #683 (handle arbitrary URIs in directories) |
| | 91 | [8:21pm] <subm> http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/683 |
| | 92 | [8:21pm] <zooko> Zarutian: would you be willing to update #683 to reflect the conversation from this channel? |
| | 93 | [8:33pm] <davidsarah> should be #432 I think |
| | 94 | [8:33pm] <subm> #432 (writing down filecaps: revise URI scheme) |
| | 95 | [8:33pm] <subm> http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/432 |
| | 96 | [8:33pm] <davidsarah> see http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/query?status=!closed&keywords=~newurls for all tickets related to new URLs |
| | 97 | |
| | 98 | }}} |
