Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion)

Larry Masinter wrote an excellent summary, to which I add the following notes only:

> There are a few areas where we can predict that sra(URI1, URI2) is false,
> but not many. HTTP URLs can be aliased. It would be hard to claim that
> you could create a system where a 'mailto' URI was sra a 'http' URL.

Well, not quite true.  For example, it could be the case that mailing to
"mailto:submission@example.com" and POSTing to "http://www.example.com/submission"
has the same effect, so they could plausibly be considered two URIs
for the same (write-only) resource.

> The point is to create a computationally practical way of predicting
> whether a receiver 'understands' the XML document it's given by
> examining the namespace it's sent. In practice, senders shouldn't
> rely on receivers having an effective approximation to 'sra' other than
> the one that returns 'true' when the URIs are string-equal and returns
> 'unknown' when they're not string equal.

Nobody in this debate wants to go past that point, except in strawman mode
(not "trial balloon", but the original sense of "strawman": a caricature
of your opponent's position, created for the purpose of demolishing it).
If the URIs are string-equal, the namespaces are equal.  However, if
the URI *references* are string-equal, must the namespaces be equal also?

	"Absolutizing" position: no.
	"Literal" position: yes.
	"Forbid" position: MU (let's unask the question, and make sure
		it can't be asked any more).

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

Received on Friday, 26 May 2000 12:00:57 UTC