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

Re: uri-comp draft necessary?

From: Miles Sabin <miles@milessabin.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 19:06:41 +0000
To: WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200212181906.41493.miles@milessabin.com>

Paul Prescod wrote,
> 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

Right, but this document uses five distinct namespaces,

  <ns1:a
    xmlns:ns1="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass"
    xmlns:ns2="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/"
    xmlns:ns3="http://www.MICROSOFT.com/presspass/"
    xmlns:ns4="http://www.microsoft.com/PRESSPASS/"
    xmlns:ns5="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/default.asp">
    <ns2:b/>
    <ns3:c/>
    <ns4:d/>
    <ns5:e/>
  </ns1:a>

This is a problem if you expect to be able to use namespace identifiers 
to retrieve namespace documents. On retrieval RFC 2396/deployed network 
infrastructure equivalences are in play, so if you don't want the 
namespace documents of distinct namespaces to collide, you have to 
choose your namespace identifiers so that as well as being non- 
equivalent wrt the Namespaces REC, they're also non-equivalent wrt RFC 
2396/deployed network infrastructure.

I would assume that if the TAG decides to endorse namespace documents of 
some sort it would have to recommend that restricted choice of 
namespace identifier as a best practice. If you wanted to follow that 
best practice you'd have no option but to assign namespace identifiers 
as if the equivalence relation were RFC 2396, no matter what the 
Namespaces REC says.

That's rewriting the REC by the back door IMO ...

Cheers,


Miles
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2002 14:07:13 GMT

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