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

Re: uri-comp draft necessary?

From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:17:04 -0800
Message-ID: <3E00BBA0.2020101@prescod.net>
To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
CC: WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>

Dare Obasanjo wrote:

>  ... 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

How would they react? So two different URIs happen to serve the same 
document. Big deal. It happens all of the time on the Web-as-we-know-it.

These URIs all deliver the same data:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/
http://www.MICROSOFT.com/presspass/
http://www.microsoft.com/PRESSPASS/
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/default.asp

Nevertheless, I would be _extremely_ annoyed if my HTTP cache treated 
them as the same URI just because at some level unrelated to URI 
comparison somebody decided that it would be useful if they delivered 
equivalent representations.

If allowing multiple definitions of "equivalence" is a fatal flaw to an 
information system then the Web is already dead.

  Paul Prescod
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2002 13:17:40 GMT

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