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

Re: issue 502, point 6

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:19:26 +0200 (MEST)
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.61.0409161632390.1809@gnenaghyn.vaevn.se>
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

> 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."

During yesterday's teleconference, the following text was proposed:
"URI comparison SHOULD be done character-for-character"
Your proposed text looks very similar, but takes a different angle, and 
actually I prefer yours :)
Is the WG ok to resolve 502 with this text instead of the originally 
proposed one?

> 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.

Also note that the Rep header is just there to provide locally a 
representation, it is not required that this representation will be used, 
so if the match is character-for-character and URI are similar, but 
written differently, it is not a big issue if an implementation fail to 
associate them.

Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2004 15:21:44 UTC

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