W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Grinding to a halt on Issue 27.

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 29 Apr 2003 08:24:41 -0500
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1051622681.6595.50.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Tue, 2003-04-29 at 02:51, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >> More importantly, it is because the namespaces draft cannot declare 
> >> them
> >> to be different because a normalizer has every right (and in some 
> >> cases
> >> a responsibility) to normalize those URIs before the namespace 
> >> processor
> >> even sees them.
> >
> > For example?
> >
> > I find this argument hard to follow without a concrete example here.
> Normalization of identifiers is often done by link management systems
> to reduce unnecessary duplication of URI trees by sloppy human folks,
> since such duplication effects both downstream caches and the valuation
> function applied by third-party indexers.  It was one of the most common
> feature requests for MOMspider.
> I expect that similar normalizers will work on xmlns attributes, with
> or without blessing of the specification,

But the heart of the matter is whether normalization happens
with the blessing of the specification or not.

Please give an example of a case where software is obliged
by specs to normalize identifiers before the namespace processor
sees them. I really can't follow your argument without one.

>  because such duplication
> might have significant performance implications on a system that
> processes and combines XML from many sources (e.g., Cocoon, blogs,
> etc.).  Besides, its just untidy, and there's no shortage of anal
> folks in the Web content industry.
> ....Roy
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 09:24:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:37 UTC