- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:35:28 -0500
- To: "xml-uri@w3.org" <xml-uri@w3.org>
At 12:50 2000 06 29 -0400, Paul W. Abrahams wrote: >John Cowan wrote: >> keshlam@us.ibm.com wrote: >> > [W]e have to >> > define namespaces as matching if and only if we're sure their URIs match -- >> > that is, if the two names are precisely string-equal. >> >> But! >> >> You are blurring the question for which this list was defined: do two namespaces >> match if their *URI*s are string-equal, or is it if the *URI references* through >> which they were specified are string-equal? That is "absolutize" vs. "literal". >> >> > The best way I know to simplify these points for pedagogical purposes -- >> > and to simplify and speed up the implementations of this logic -- is to say >> > "The URI is just compared literally". This continues to bias me heavily >> > away from the Absolutize behavior. >> >> Au contraire, it *is* the Absolutize behavior; you are kicking the ball into >> your own goalposts. The Literal behavior is that the URI references are >> compared literally. > >There's something very worrisome here when two such smart, articulate, and >well-informed people have such a basic disagreement, not about what ought to be, >but about what is. I don't see it that way. The above exchange is a question of terminology. It really shouldn't be that hard to realize that "URI" and "URI reference" are different things (and I know Joe understands this). A lot of what this public discussion has accomplished is to get folks to understand the terminology and details of RFC 2396 better. Joe's point, I think, was about pedagogy which is valid but hard to argue one way or the other on technical merits.
Received on Thursday, 29 June 2000 13:35:33 UTC