use relative path syntax

[ilans]

Require filenames to use the relative path syntax.

To fix #910

[bact]

To remove the entire RFC is a big change, considering this one already passed the OMG review. At this stage, I understand that the change should be minimal and as necessary.

And the syntax for filename in RFC is more than just the prefix.

[zvr]

Sorry, @bact, I must be misunderstanding something.

How is any of the RFC relevant? The RFC talks about URIs, this field accepts filenames.

[goneall]

Agree with @zvr and @ilans - we should remove this reference.

@zvr @ramartin - What will this do to the ISO / OMG review if we merge this in?

[kestewart]

Not sure why URI syntax is relevant to file name syntax, not sure why it was included initially.

[goneall]

Agree with the change - pending feedback from @zvr and @bobmartin3000 on impact to OMG review process

[bact]

I'm fine to have the change. My concern is this is clearly not a change in a category of typo.

The URI can be a filename, so there is no harm keeping it.

But there can be a potential harm of prolonging the OMG review process.
If that's not the case, I don't see problem to have this change go to 3.0.1.

We defer a lot of issues and PRs in the past few months because of that OMG review reason.
I'm just try to keep it consistent that way. This is my understanding.

[bact]

This is Bob username @bobmartin3000

[bact]

If the process allows this to be in 3.0.1, please proceed.

[bobmartin3000]

Functionally we aren't changing anything with the removal of the reference to the RFC. I'm okay with the change but it is stretching the editorial change label.

[bobmartin3000]

LGTM.