- From: Brad Porter <brad@tellme.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 06:06:12 -0700
- To: public-appformats@w3.org
I had been reading an earlier version of the draft (http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/draft-duerst-iri-03.txt) that included this text when I proposed byte-wise comparison > In some scenarios a definite answer to the question of IRI > equivalence is needed that is independent of the scheme used and > always can be calculated quickly and without accessing a network. An > example of such a case might be XML Namespaces ([XMLNamespace]). In > such cases, two IRIs SHOULD be defined as equivalent if and only if > they are character-by-character equivalent. This is the same as > being byte-by-byte equivalent if the character encoding for both IRIs > is the same. As an example, > http://example.org/~user, http://example.org/%7euser, and > http://example.org/%7Euser would not be equivalent under this > definition. In such a case, the comparison function MUST NOT map the > IRIs to URIs, because such a mapping would create something different > under this equivalence relationship. The latest draft specifies a "Simple String Comparison" method that should likely be used instead. The latest draft is here: http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/draft-duerst-iri-11.txt Brad
Received on Wednesday, 23 August 2006 13:06:19 UTC