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 10:07:52 -0700
Message-ID: <007301c018ee$2b75aff0$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>

My two statements are completely consistent: It is fully acceptable but
not required for any parser to know about specific URI schemes and their
normalization rules.

What is the problem?

Henrik

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Aldridge [mailto:john.aldridge@informatix.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 09:59
> To: Frystyk; michaelm@netsol.com
> Cc: Simon St.Laurent; XML-uri@w3.org
> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-daigle-uri-std-00.txt
>
>
> At 09:05 07/09/00 -0700, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> >Henrik
> >
> >[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000Jun/0721.html
> >[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000Jun/0739.html
>
> I was referring to the following exchange
>
> Me:
>
> >You are saying, then, that the XPath REC should permit, _but
> not require_,
> >XPath implementations (including XSLT) to normalise NSURIs
> in a scheme
> >dependent manner when comparing names?
>
> Henrik:
>
> >You can not require them to do that just as well as you can
> not require
> >them to know about a particular namespace.
>
> Me:
>
> >This can clearly result in a given XML source/XSLT
> stylesheet combination
> >producing different results depending on the normalisations
> performed by
> >the particular XPath implementation.
>
> Henrik:
>
> >If you don't want that possibility then don't use a URI
> space that has
> >this behavior - it is up to you, see [1].
>
> --
> Cheers,
> John
>
Received on Thursday, 7 September 2000 13:07:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Tuesday, 12 April 2005 12:17:25 GMT