W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > September 2000

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-daigle-uri-std-00.txt

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 09:05:53 -0700
Message-ID: <004f01c018e5$835f4450$fb4c1fac@redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "John Aldridge" <john.aldridge@informatix.co.uk>, <michaelm@netsol.com>
Cc: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, <XML-uri@w3.org>
> Do you go further and say that  XSLT (which matches elements
> and attributes
> based on their namespaces being the same) must therefore use this
> definition of equivalence?  I.e. two QNames match if their
> namespace URIs
> are byte-for-byte identical and their local parts are the same?
> Again, I agree, but Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (at least) has
> expressed the
> view that this is not what the relevant RFCs/RECs say (or
> what they should
> say).

That is over-simplifying what I stated - in [1], I said that

    1) The generator of a name has the responsiblity to
       know the semantics of the URI space that she is using

    2) It is sufficient if a basic consumer only uses
       octet-by-octet comparison taking into account relative
       URIs. However, it is also fully acceptable for the
       consumer to know about special normalization rules of a
       URI space and apply those if so desired.

which I further elaborated on in [2] mentioning the responsibilities of
the party generating the document and the party consuming the document.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000Jun/0721.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000Jun/0739.html
Received on Thursday, 7 September 2000 12:05:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:44 UTC