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

Re: Fixed Section 1.1 language

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 21:45:02 -0400
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF913895BB.A18329E1-ON85256BFF.00081089@lotus.com>

Nice job -- overall I like it a lot.  A couple of small suggestions:


The introduction of new URI schemes SHOULD be avoided.
The unnecessary introduction of new URI schemes SHOULD be avoided.
- or - 
The introduction of new URI schemes SHOULD be minimized.

Presumably there are, from time to time, good reasons for introducing new 
schemes.  Introduction of such schemes SHOULD NOT be avoided IMO.  The 
original suggests it's always a bad idea.


It is often necessary to compare URIs for equivalence to determine whether 
they identify the same resource. URI schemes vary in their definitions of 

For example, URNs

I understand and agree with what's intended by this statement.  On the 
other hand, it seems to unintentionally open the broader question of 
taking two arbitrary URI's and determining using some general means 
whether they refer to the same resource.  For example, does 
(http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml) refer to the same resource as 
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006).  I believe that, at the 
moment, it does. 

It is not in general possible to determine by inspection whether two 
different URI's refer to the same resource.  Particular URI schemes MAY, 
however, mandate equivalence for particular sets of URIs using that 

For example, URNs ...

Again, thanks for doing such a nice job on this.

Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

        Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
        Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
        07/16/2002 06:47 PM
                 To: www-tag@w3.org
                 cc: (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
                 Subject: Fixed Section 1.1 language

Per my action item I updated the language in my draft of section 1.1 to 
remove the special favor given to time among the many things on which 
the representation of a resource can depend.  Also I added an example 
(something no section of the arch doc should be without).

At http://www.textuality.com/tag/s1.1.html  -Tim
Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 21:46:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:32 UTC