W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > July 2011

Re: canonical form and scheme-specific processing rules for URI/IRI spec

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:06:47 -0400
Message-ID: <4E14A437.5070606@mit.edu>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:42 UTC