W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2002

RE: uri-comp draft necessary?

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:21:41 -0800
Message-ID: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B7C746@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, "WWW-Tag" <www-tag@w3.org>

If you believe this then I assume this means there will also be a
URL-comp draft issued shortly thereafter? 

Your document is very important for several reasons from being a handy
listing of URI comparison mechanisms for implementers to showing the
folly of URIs in a succint manner. Stopping work on the document is
simply sweeping the problem under the table. It would be difficult to
keep a straight face if the W3C TAG issued a document saying that 

http://www.example.com and HTTP://www.example.com

were not equivalent then watching how that reacted with the notion that
namespace URIs should be dereferencable[0]. 

[0] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#namespaceDocument-8

-- 
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
The hurrier you go, the behinder you get.                       

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. 

>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 5:30 PM
> To: WWW-Tag
> 
> 
> At several points during yesterday's TAG call, Dan claimed 
> repeatedly that URIs a and b are equivalent if 
> (strcmp(a,b)==0) equal, otherwise not, end of story.  If we 
> believe this, we can discard the uri-comp draft entirely 
> right now and I won't put any more work into editing it. 
>   Do we believe this? -Tim
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2002 12:22:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:14 GMT