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

Re: BIND spec: Potential URI comparison issue

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:38:01 +0200
Message-ID: <414F69D9.5060007@gmx.de>
To: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>

Ted Hardie wrote:
> ...
> opaquelocktoken is defined in 2518, at least if I am reading the URI scheme
> registrations at IANA correctly.   Are you planning to update 2518?  If so,

No.

> do you plan to change the generation reference from the UUID reference
> (ISO 11578) to something else?  As it stands now, I would expect
> implementations to treat to tokens as equivalent if the UUID would
> be equivalent.

Well, the BIND spec allows *any* URI scheme. We can't expect recipients 
of DAV:resource-id properties to be aware of special comparison rules 
for specific URI schemes. So the simplest way to achieve 
interoperability is to specify one specific comparison that can be 
implemented by everybody without any knowledge of the various levels of 
URI equivalence (see RFC2396bis).

Note that this is the same problem as in XML Namespaces and in Atom, 
thus the same solution.

> Note as well that equivalence of the scheme name (Opaquelocktoken vs.
> opaquelocktoken) is different to the equivalence of the token.  2396bis
> defines the scheme as case-insensitive, even though the canonical
> form is lower case.

Yes. That's why we want to keep this simple (if the simplest solution 
works, why choose a different one?).

Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 20 September 2004 23:38:41 GMT

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