W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > September 2004

Re: issue 502, point 6

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:34:07 -0400
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFDAC39FA7.35815699-ON85256F10.005AEFEA@lotus.com>

This may arrive after our discussion, since I am in the air right now as 
you are having the call.   In case it's helpful, I see the representation 
header as enabling the implementation of proxy caching, e.g. with HTTP. In 
this particular case, I would think the right answer would be along the 
lines of:

"URIs that are character for character identical MUST be considered equal 
when using a representation header to resolve a web reference;  URIs that 
are considered equal according to the URI scheme of the URI SHOULD be 
considered equal."

Otherwise, we prohibit http://example.com/somename from matching 
HTTP://example.com/somename and http://EXAMPLE.COM/somename.  I don't have 
all the pertinent rfc's with me here on the plane, but I believe that per 
the HTTP spec these are equal and all would match the same entry in a 
proxy cache.

Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
09/09/2004 08:44 AM

        To:     xml-dist-app@w3.org
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        issue 502, point 6

This issue is about URI equivalence.

We have two choices there:
1/ do like XML Namespace, and use a "character-for-character" comparison
2/ require exact mapping, including all possible variations

As the goal is to add a header with the content of a URI found in the 
original infoset, I see no reason to change the characters of the URI in 
that process, so my preference goes to solution 1.

Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2004 13:36:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:26 UTC