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

RE: uri-comp draft necessary?

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:24:51 -0800
Message-ID: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B7C75D@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>, "Miles Sabin" <miles@milessabin.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

Is the TAG issue about URIs or namespace names? I don't see anything wrong with namespaces in XML deciding to use character by character based comparison for namespace names (that happen to use URI syntax) but believe it is unwise to somehow propose that this is how all URI (i.e. URN or URL) comparisons should work. 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@prescod.net] 
	Sent: Thu 12/19/2002 11:02 AM 
	To: Miles Sabin; www-tag@w3.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: uri-comp draft necessary?
	
	


	Miles Sabin wrote:
	
	> Paul Prescod wrote,
	>
	> >Everyone agrees we don't want to go there. Let's not go there. Next
	> >issue?
	>
	>
	> If we end up in a situation where we're saying that one or other of,
	>
	>
	>
	> and,
	>
	>
	>
	> is frowned on (which one, I wonder, and why?) then we're going there
	> willy nilly.
	>
	> That's where this alleged "best practice" leads.
	
	I think you're trying to invent a problem where there isn't one. Have
	you ever seen two namespace declarations that differed only in case?
	Have you ever seen software that produces them? Have you ever seen
	software that was confused by them? This "best practice" is common sense
	and writing it down is at worst (and probably at best!) a waste of time.
	
	You're using a lot of rhetorically charged words like "willy nilly" and
	"changing through the back door" and "opening a can of worms". But can
	you please outline a realistic scenario in which there is a problem
	caused by having a string-based equivalence for namespace URIs and yet
	having them be dereferencable (and thus _also_ subject to protocol
	equivalence constraints). I'm waiting to hear of a scenario where a lung
	machine explodes or a purchase order goes awry or ...
	
	  Paul Prescod
	
	
Received on Thursday, 19 December 2002 15:25:27 GMT

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