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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 29 Apr 2003 21:57:57 -0500
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <1051671476.6596.174.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Tue, 2003-04-29 at 18:27, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > 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:

In what message? Oh well, no need for a pointer since you
gave me a copy.

>    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*.

Hmm... OK, that's a coherent position. It seems pretty subtle,
but it meets all my requirements, I guess.

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

Perhaps I wasn't clear: I mean an example of two URIs.
The actual strings. Not an example scenario.

>  You just didn't accept it.  That's your problem.

Let's not go there, OK?

> 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
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 22:57:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:23 UTC