W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: BIND spec: Potential URI comparison issue

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:55:27 -0400
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF42886C6E.8121DBC6-ON85256F12.004BC204-85256F12.004C7D55@us.ibm.com>
I agree that "identical" in this case should 
mean "identical character-by-character".

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian wrote on 09/17/2004 08:33:22 AM:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> a recent discussion on the Atom mailing list reminded me to check how 
> the BIND spec currently defines "sameness" of resources [1]:
> 
> "If the values of DAV:resource-id returned by PROPFIND requests through 
> two bindings are identical, the client can be assured that the two 
> bindings are to the same resource."
> 
> The (potential) issue here is although the spec says "indentical", 
> people may believe that assumptions about specific URI equivalence rules 

> are allowed. For instance, or the following URIs identical?
> 
> "opaquelocktoken:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf8"
> "Opaquelocktoken:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf8"
> "opaquelocktoken:f81d4fae%2d7dec-11d0%2da765%2d00a0c91e6bf8"
> "opaquelocktoken:f81d4fae%2D7dec-11d0%2da765%2D00a0c91e6bf8"
> 
> This is already non-trivial when only considering a single URI scheme, 
> but it get's very hairy with multiple schemes.
> 
> Proposal: clarify that "identical" means "identical 
character-by-character".
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 
> 
> [1] 
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.
> html#determining.whether.two.bindings.are.to.the.same.resource> 
> 
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
> 
Received on Friday, 17 September 2004 13:56:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:06 GMT