Issue #648: overly specific reason for not using relative URLs

[evanp]

Issue #648 points out that the reason listed in Section 2.2 for not using relative URLs is incomplete and inexact. This erratum replaces the term "JSON parser implementations" with the more general and accurate "consumers", which is used elsewhere in the document.

[ThisIsMissEm]

Maybe replace "base context" with "base URI" ? As to avoid confusion with @context? So:

Suggested change

- Section 2.2 "IRIs and URLs" says that publishers SHOULD NOT generate AS2 documents with relative IRI and URL references because JSON parser implementations may not conserve the base context to resolve relative references. This is overly specific; there are other types of implementations that may also fail to conserve the base context. One correction is to simply remove the reference to JSON parsers and replace it with "consumers": "Relative IRI (and URL) references SHOULD NOT be used within an Activity Streams 2.0 document due to the fact that many consumers are not capable of reliably preserving the base context necessary to properly resolve relative references."

- Section 2.2 "IRIs and URLs" says that publishers SHOULD NOT generate AS2 documents with relative IRI and URL references because JSON parser implementations may not conserve the base context to resolve relative references. This is overly specific; there are other types of implementations that may also fail to conserve the base context. One correction is to simply remove the reference to JSON parsers and replace it with "consumers": "Relative IRI (and URL) references SHOULD NOT be used within an Activity Streams 2.0 document due to the fact that many consumers are not capable of reliably preserving the base URI necessary to properly resolve relative references."

We could also add a note that determining the base URI may have significant uncertainty between the implementations and different object structures you might receive. e.g., if an object has an @id but a relative IRI or URL with in, does that mean it's relative to that @id even if the parent object has a @base?

[ThisIsMissEm]

The language of "base URI" comes from RFC 3986, Section 5.2.1