W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Grinding to a halt on Issue 27. (off list)

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:27:29 -0700
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Message-Id: <25170836-7A9A-11D7-982A-000393753936@apache.org>

> sigh... trudge thru archives... you clearly know what text
> you're talking about; is it so much trouble to give me a
> pointer? or at least a date from a mail message?
>
> I don't see it in mail from you to www-tag this month.
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/author.html
> More clues?

Right in that message:

   Therefore, Namespaces shouldn't say that the namespaces (identified)
   are different, even for a limited purpose.  What it should say is that
   the identifier is assumed to be in normal form (because consistency 
has
   its own rewards) and that no additional normalization is required
   prior to comparison (for efficiency reasons), noting that *because* of
   this decision, inconsistent use of equivalent URIs in the namespace
   attributes will result in a regrettable, but not fatal, false negative
   match when they are mixed within the same process.  Authors are
   therefore encouraged to be consistent for the sake of efficiency.

That is all that needs to be said.  It does not need to say that the
identifiers are *different*.

> And this is the second time you've replied to my requests
> for an example without providing one.

I provided an example. You just didn't accept it.  That's your problem.
TimBL provided the other example, which is that URI processors tend
to be reused and therefore claiming this thing is a URI but does not
adhere to the principles of URIs is the same as declaring a subset
of the URI specification.

....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 19:38:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:29 GMT