- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:06:47 -0400
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- CC: "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
On 7/6/11 2:00 PM, Larry Masinter wrote: > "Normalization" and "canonicalization" are used equivalently, and > neither term is canonical. In my mail, I specifically meant the terms "normalization" as used in RFC 3986 and "canonicalization" as used by Adam Barth in his mail. Those words, in those contexts, mean somewhat different things. > One can derive an equivalence relationship from a canonicalization > method: two elements are equivalent if they have the same canonical form. Indeed. But this is not the only possible use of canonicalization. > For IRIs there are several equivalence relationships, useful for > different purposes. Yep. > Defining a canonical form (choosing a canonical > canonicalization) doesn't seem necessary, although it might be useful. Well, it's necessary for some use cases; specifically APIs that return parts of a URI. > But you would need a different canonicalization for every equivalence > relationship. A priori yes. How many different web-facing equivalence relationships are there in practice? -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2011 18:07:16 UTC