Re: Grinding to a halt on Issue 27.

• From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
• Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 23:58:16 -0700
• To: <www-tag@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <000001c30ee5$e1225890$6ace8642@MASINTERPAD>

I think even after IRIs are approved, there is a problem
with the multiple definitions of equivalence which can
only be resolved by encouraging systems that use strict
(strcmp) equivalence to never use more than one of various
forms that might be equivalent using a looser definition.

Of 
  * http://www.example.org/~wilbur
  * http://www.example.org/%7ewilbur
  * http://www.example.org/%7Ewilbur

Only the first should be used as a namespace name.
Namespace processors may assume that they will never
any of the others.

============================

Of
  * http://www.example.org/ros%e9
  * http://www.example.org/ros%c3%a9
  * http://www.example.org/ros%c3%A9
  * http://www.example.org/ros%C3%a9
  * http://www.example.org/ros%C3%A9

None of these should be used as a namespace name.
Namespace processors may assume they will never encounter
these.

   http://www.example.org/rosé 

is preferable.
==================================
Among 
  * http://www.example.org/wine
  * http://www.Example.org/wine
  * http://www.example.org/Wine

the second should never be used as a namespace
name. Using the first and third as distinct namespace
names isn't a great idea, but it isn't as bad to
disallow them. Namespace processors may assume
they will never encounter the second example.


=======================
In general: make the hard cases moot.

I know that it was suggested that a requirement of
namespaces 1.1 that they be a superset of namespaces 1.0,
but avoid the hobgoblin of consistency, and "do the
right thing". No one will mind.

Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 02:58:30 UTC