- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <gsneddon@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:45:09 +0100
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- CC: public-iri@w3.org
Martin J. Dürst wrote: > Many thanks for your comment. > > I think intent of saying that percent encoding normalization MUST only > be done locally was to protect against changes that would lead to > problems for uses such as XML Namespaces and RDF, where equality is > defined character-by-character on the surface representation (i.e. '%' > equals '%',...). > > However, I agree that this seems to be too strong, and in some way out > of place, because such a provision would have to be in each and every > subsection of the comparison ladder. I think it is better to only talk > about this point in Simple String Comparison (currently > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duerst-iri-bis-07#section-5.3.2). Indeed, it would need to be present everywhere: it also ends up not making not overly much sense, as you could end up with HTTP clients making requests for /foo/bar/.././myfile for example. Just because XML Namespaces and RDF define URI comparison as being done on a character-by-character basis doesn't seem like a good enough reason to restrict all normalization to internal use. It seems to be sensible enough to try and normalize any IRI regardless of whether it'll be passed on or not (and in the XML Namespaces and RDF cases you are almost always better off treating the IRI as an opaque string). The present state (in 3987) of disallowing some normalization for that reason but not other normalization rather makes the fact that some is disallowed pointless. I'd rather there weren't any restrictions on normalization. -- Geoffrey Sneddon — Opera Software <http://gsnedders.com/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 11:45:48 UTC