[Nfd-dev] How to treat ".." in an NDN URI?

[Alex Afanasyev]

As far as I can understand, what Junxiao is saying applies only to URI representation and is never exposed in wire TLV representation, with which forwarder is working on.

My opinion is that this feature should be implemented only when somebody actually needs it.  Until then, there is no point of spending time on it.

---
Alex

On Aug 13, 2014, at 11:07 AM, Beichuan Zhang <bzhang at cs.ARIZONA.EDU> wrote:

> It makes sense from the app/browser point of view. My concern was about the forwarder. I don’t think NFD should support all the variations of these relative paths.
> 
> Beichuan
> 
> On Aug 13, 2014, at 9:20 AM, Junxiao Shi <shijunxiao at email.arizona.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Beichuan
>> 
>> visit ndn:/example/dir1/page1.htm
>> page1 contains a link with href="../dir2/page2.htm"
>> clicking this link navigates to ndn:/example/dir2/page2.htm
>> This procedure does not inevitably require ".." to be permitted in an absolute URI. However, RFC3986 defines the resolution of both relative URI and absolute URI to use the same procedure, therefore ".." is permitted in absolute URIs as well.
>> 
>> 
>> Linking to relative URIs is useful in web development, because it allows an author to create a web page or web application without first knowing the absolute URI under which it would be hosted.
>> The alternative is to write absolute URIs everywhere, which is not desirable by web developers.
>> 
>> Yours, Junxiao
>> 
>> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Beichuan Zhang <bzhang at cs.arizona.edu> wrote:
>> can you give an example?
>> 
>> On Aug 10, 2014, at 9:59 PM, Junxiao Shi <shijunxiao at email.arizona.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> ndn protocol extension for Firefox needs relative URIs. The base URI used in resolution is Data Name without segment component.
>>> 
>>> On Aug 10, 2014 9:56 PM, "Beichuan Zhang" <bzhang at cs.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > This is complicate. In what scenarios do we need to use “up to a level” as an NDN name component?
>>> >
>>> > Can we treat ‘.’ and ‘..’ as is without the special meaning of “this level” and “up to a level”? I’m also fine with treating them as illegal name components. 
>>> >
>>> > Beichuan
>>> >
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nfd-dev mailing list
> Nfd-dev at lists.cs.ucla.edu
> http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/nfd-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/nfd-dev/attachments/20140813/c009bc94/attachment.html>