RE: URI comparison

Without referring to any authoritative source, I would have thought that the terminal slash was an error. (I fully expect to be beaten to death with a 600 page standard for saying that, of course)
 
Given that we now have examples in our test suite showing both versions (even if one is officially incorrect), I wonder if we should mandate a bit of canonicalisation of URIs (perhaps guaranteeing the presence or absence of a trailing slash, lowercase for the prefix, simple stuff like that). I can see this coming up over and over again.
 
Tony Rogers
CA, Inc
Senior Architect, Development
tony.rogers@ca.com
co-chair UDDI TC at OASIS
co-chair WS-Desc WG at W3C

________________________________

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of Youenn Fablet
Sent: Mon 24-Jul-06 18:24
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Cc: Arthur Ryman
Subject: URI comparison




Hi all,

I dug into some of the WSDL documents for which our wsdl parser does not
match with the baseline.
Some differences are due to the use in some documents (Echo-1G for
instance) of the following binding URI:
       wsoap:protocol="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindings/HTTP"
Our parser recognizes the use of the SOAP1.2 HTTP binding with the
following URI:
       wsoap:protocol="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindings/HTTP/"
The sole difference is the last character '/'.
We currently use a simple character-by-character comparison to match the
URI against the SOAP1.2 binding URI, as defined IIRC somewhere in part 1.
Arthur, do you know how Woden is handling URI processing and comparison ?
Regards,
    Youenn