RE: Grinding to a halt on Issue 27.

Hi Dan,

I would be happy if you would forward my message to
any group to which you think it is appropriate.

Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 8:11 AM
> To: Larry Masinter
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Grinding to a halt on Issue 27.
> 
> 
> 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/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.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 17:25:43 UTC