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

Re: Fixed Section 1.1 language

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:52:17 -0700
Message-ID: <3D45B911.7050206@textuality.com>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

> <original>
> The introduction of new URI schemes SHOULD be avoided.
> </original>
> <proposed>
> The unnecessary introduction of new URI schemes SHOULD be avoided.
> </proposed>
> - or - 
> <proposed>
> The introduction of new URI schemes SHOULD be minimized.
> </proposed>
> 
> 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.

Yes, but isn't this exactly the semantic of SHOULD - do it unless 
there's a reason not to?  Also I'd like to leave the language strong 
here because there does seem to be a hunger out there to invent them, cf 
WebDAV.

> <original>
> It is often necessary to compare URIs for equivalence to determine whether 
> they identify the same resource. URI schemes vary in their definitions of 
> equivalence. 
> 
> For example, URNs
> </original>
> 
> 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. 
> 
> <proposed>
> 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 
> scheme. 
> 
> For example, URNs ...
> </proposed>

Yep, good catch.  Will fix up & republish. -Tim
Received on Monday, 29 July 2002 17:52:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:10 GMT