- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:24:33 +0200
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> Incorrect. Many URIs can identify the same XXXX. > > Then I'm not understanding here. In what sense are those XXXXs then > "the same", if their URLs differ? It depends on the applied comparison function. For instance... <http://www.w3.org/> <HTTP://www.w3.org/> <http://www.w3.org:80/> all identify the same resource. Now you could claim that these URIs are indeed the same, and that also depends on which type of comparison you choose (see <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.6.2>). But of course servers can expose the same resource under many more names that differ just in the path or query component (for instance, consider a server that servers files from the file system, and the file system supports hard links). In those cases the same resource will appear with different path values. >> If that is a good thing, why aren't we changing stuff like: >> >>> A DOCTYPE must consist of the following characters, in this order: >>> >>> 1. A U+003C LESS-THAN SIGN (<) character. >>> 2. A U+0021 EXCLAMATION MARK (!) character. >>> 3. A string that is an ASCII case-insensitive match for the string >>> "DOCTYPE". >>> 4. One or more space characters. >>> 5. A string that is an ASCII case-insensitive match for the string >>> "HTML". >>> 6. Optionally, a DOCTYPE legacy string (defined below). >>> 7. Zero or more space characters. >>> 8. A U+003E GREATER-THAN SIGN (>) character. >> ??? > > I don't know. That could certainly be made a lot more concise without > sacrificing precision. See? I'm all for precision and conciseness, I just do not see that rule applied in this particular context :-) BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 15:25:13 UTC