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: 30 Apr 2003 10:10:43 -0500
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1051715442.6596.181.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 01:58, Larry Masinter wrote:
> 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.

This appeals to me. I gather this is Roy's position as well.

It's very useful as feedback on the namespaces CR
(if you send it to their comments list, please copy me.
If you don't, I'll probably forward it.)

But there are a bunch of other specs where IRIEverywhere
shows up too... I wonder if there's something useful
to write that covers the rest of them...

> 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/rosť 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 11:10:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:17 GMT