From major.brian at gmail.com Tue Aug 1 19:50:03 2017 From: major.brian at gmail.com (Brian Major) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 10:50:03 -0700 Subject: Reminder: GWS telecon: August 3, 15:00-16:00 UTC Message-ID: Hi everyone, This is a reminder of the 2nd GWS telecon this Thursday, 15:00 UTC. Container technology, code-to-data, and VOSpace implementations will be brought up, though other GWS related topics are welcome. If possible, please send me additional items for discussion beforehand. Brian On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Brian Major wrote: > Hi Grid, > > After an informative and useful first GWS telecon, we have scheduled a > second one for Thursday August 3rd, again at 15:00 UTC. Thank you to those > who were able to attend last week. > > The VIdyo technology worked well so we'll continue to use it: > > https://vidyo.computecanada.ca/flex.html?roomdirect.html&k > ey=fGdlHcqZBXghafbA7BY1VHCmSs > > A short recap of the topics discussed in the telecon on June 22: > - Discussion of different types of back-end storage options for VOSpace > - Discussions about VOSpace implementation plans including > server-to-server copying > - Comparisons of the various container technologies and their > advantages/disadvantages > - Discussions on container performance > - Discussions of how containers could fit into the IVOA > > Cheers, > Brian > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From major.brian at gmail.com Tue Aug 15 19:59:31 2017 From: major.brian at gmail.com (Brian Major) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 10:59:31 -0700 Subject: Identifiers in VOSpace In-Reply-To: <20170621085658.GA10202@victor> References: <20170612083906.GA20839@victor> <20170621085658.GA10202@victor> Message-ID: Hi Markus, The use of the question mark (?) instead of the hash (#) was originally motivated by Norman's note on the use of fragments in URIs: http://ivoa.net/documents/Notes/URIFragments/20120525/NOTE-URIFragments-1.0-20120525.html But I think you're right, these particular identifiers don't seem to go against those recommendations. Thanks for the clarification. Brian On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Markus Demleitner < msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote: > Hi Grid, > > While I cannot really comment most of Brian's points, I feel > compelled to stress one important bit on URI semantics: > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:22:50PM -0700, Brian Major wrote: > > 2.0 synctrans: ivo://ivoa.net/std/VOSpace/v2.0#/synctrans > > 2.1 synctrans: ivo://ivoa.net/std/VOSpace?synctrans-2.1 > > This really needs to be ivo://ivoa.net/std/VOSpace#synctrans-2.1 > (hash rather than question mark). The background is that > synctrans-2.1 refers to something *within* the resource > ivo://ivoa.net/std/VOSpace: A standard key, in this case. > > The URI ivo://ivoa.net/std/VOSpace?synctrans-2.1 would essentially > mean: Dereference the URI ivo://ivoa.net/std/VOSpace and then make > some sort of request to it with synctrans-2.1 as a parameter-like > thing. > > This is not different form the way these things work with common HTML > resources referenced through HTTP URLs. Consider, for instance, the > following python CGI: > > import os > print("""content-type:text/html\n > >

Hello World

{}

> > """.format(os.environ.get("QUERY_STRING", ""))) > > which I've installed on http://www.g-vo.org/cgi-bin/frag.py [1]. > > With this, > > http://www.g-vo.org/cgi-bin/frag.py#constant > > will (conceptually) be the DOM element

Hello World

> (referencing something *within* the resource). > > http://www.g-vo.org/cgi-bin/frag.py?constant > > on the other hand, is the entire document > > >

Hello World

constant

> > > > The URI > > http://www.g-vo.org/cgi-bin/frag.py#random > > is a dangling reference, as there's no entity with the id (or name>) "random" in the resource before the fragment identifier. > > The URI > > http://www.g-vo.org/cgi-bin/frag.py?random > > is perfectly ok (try it if it's not obvious to you what resource it > references), as is, in this particular case, > > http://www.g-vo.org/cgi-bin/frag.py?random#constant > > which references the same p element as above. The qualification "in > this particular case" is because in general, appending a query string > can of course totally alter the resource returned, so in general > there's no guarantee that a given fragment will be present in a > response regardless of the query string[2]. > > Sorry for posting lots of code, URIs, and angle brackets, but we're > really doing ourselves a favour if we work with, rather than against > the URI semantics as planned by the URI creators. > > -- Markus > > > [1] Yes, I'm aware that this code is wide open to XSS, and you > shouldn't put it onto a server in this form; in the thing > actually on my server, there's some additional code to plug this, > irrelevant to this example. > > [2] as an example, consider the the CGI script > > import os > print("""content-type:text/html\n > >

Hello World

> > """.format(os.environ.get("QUERY_STRING", ""))) > > With it, only URIs of the form ...?# would actually > reference something if there's a fragment identifier. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: