- From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- Date: Sat, 27 May 100 21:02:23 -0400 (EDT)
- To: cce@clarkevans.com (Clark C. Evans)
- Cc: david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk, cce@clarkevans.com, xml-uri@w3.org
Clark C. Evans scripsit: > Correct. For backwards compatibility, re-write all of the examples > to use "data:" and then deprechiate use of any other URI type! Better yet, just agree that the namespace name *always* implies a data URI encapsulating it. > DEFINE NAMESPACE EQUIVALENCE AS A BYTE-FOR-BYTE COMPARISON > OF THE RESOURCE AS RESOLVED *AND* RETRIEVED. That is horrible: it means processing software is at the mercy of document editors who see fit to use URLs that are hard to fetch (or downright impossible, like mid: or cid:, if you don't have the relevant email message around). Caching just amortizes the extra cost, it doesn't eliminate it. > The equivalence class for "http:" URIs is already defined > by resolution & retrival. No, it isn't. To repeat my argument (*sigh*): If accessing two URIs retrieves the same entity body, it proves nothing [about the two URIs identifying the same resource]: they may have the same content by coincidence. If accessing two URIs retrieves a different entity body, it still proves nothing: they may identify a single time-varying resource. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org Yes, I know the message date is bogus. I can't help it. --me, on far too many occasions
Received on Saturday, 27 May 2000 20:38:32 UTC