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

Re: rationalizing identifier [was Re: Rationalizing the term URI]

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 23:12:27 -0800
To: <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000201c2c377$f3b0f3e0$6ace8642@MASINTER>

I'm not in favor of redefining the term "URI" in terms
of byte sequences instead of 'sequence of characters'.

I think there is a lot of strength in the fact that
a URI encoded in EBCDIC is the "same" 
as one encoded in ASCII and with the "same" characters. 
(in this case, same[URI] is the baseline equality
for URI equivalence, and same[characters] is the
equivalence of characters after transcoding.)

As long as URIs have a restricted repertoire
of characters, there is no problem.

Part of the work for IRIs is to insure that 
two IRIs which have the same characters
are equivalent even when represented in two different
charsets, especially when the charsets have different
character repertoires or non-1:1 mappings.

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 02:13:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:15 GMT