Original text:
2.2. Representations within a bundle are named by their "Content-Location" <del> (Section 8.7 of I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics), which holds a URL.  This is also known as the representation's URL. </del>  This identifying information for each representation is stored in an index (index-section) rather than in that representation's HTTP

Reviewer comments:
Closes URL
Thanks. Sent URL
The context is URL The current format says: https://wpack-URL URL Given that, it seems the format already allows a relative URL in the index section, however, it'd be better to ask a clarification than guessing its intention. Using a relative URL is supposed to work? If so, we don't need to request a bundle format change to resolve URL
More context: https://chromium-URL This CL is intended to support relative URLs in web bundles for Subrerouce Web Bundle feature.
NAME What do you think about this? I think the section was introduced by this change in WICG/webpackage. URL
cc: NAME NAME
We need to specify how the keys in the index section are parsed, independent of their semantics as s. I'd intended that to eventually move to the when I removed the algorithms in , with the format spec here being less precise, but I think it was a mistake that I didn't even specify between absolute and relative URLs in the index. We should probably add a sentence here to say which it is. Since we have a use case for relative URLs, let's pick that one. This spec should say something about what the URLs are relative to. Probably a bundle-defined base URL, which defaults to the location of the bundle but can be overridden by a section's contents? And that it's an error if two sections independently set the base URL without their own definitions disambiguating?
I agree that the spec should clearly say that it supports relative URL. Created . Could you please reivew? I think when we introduce a new section, the section should be able to override the bundle's URL. But I don't know how useful it is yet.
This is a good idea, thank you (and apologies for the delay in providing feedback). I have added a small suggestion .
Thank you, this change looks good to me. I have a small suggestion below.Looks good, but please do run this by EMAIL before merging. Hi, WPACK folks. I'm Tsuyoshi Horo. I am working on Web Packaging in Chromium project. We are thinking about changing the spec of Web Bundles to support relative URLs. Currently, the spec says: (Section 8.7 of [I-D.ietf httpbis-semantics]), which holds a URL. This is also known as the representation's URL And draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19 says: It seems the spec already supports relative URLs. But we'd like to make it clear. So, I created this pull request. URL Do folks here have any opinions on this change of the pull request? Thanks.

Revised text:
2.2. Representations within a bundle are named by their "Content-Location"  <ins> (Section 8.7 of I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics).  This is also known as the representation's URL.  It is either an absolute-URI or a partial- URI (Section 2.7 of RFC7230).  In the latter case, the referenced URL is relative to the bundle's URL unless an additional section in the bundle specifies a different base URL. </ins> This identifying information for each representation is stored in an index (index-section) rather than in that representation's HTTP