Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:54:36 +0100 (MET) From: "Martin J. Duerst" <email@example.com> To: "Karen R. Sollins" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue? In-Reply-To: <199702051734.MAA13509@lysithea.lcs.mit.edu> Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95q.970210154838.245d-100000@enoshima> On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Karen R. Sollins wrote: > If you are thinking of using unordered attributes somehow only limited > to relative URLs, since their scope can also be very large (I don't > see any particular limitation on them), scaling must be an issue for > them as well. But, as I said, perhaps I missed something here and > there are new ways to deal with the scaling problem that have just > passed me by. Scaling doesn't have to be that much of an issue because it is not the responsibility of the generic syntax to decide whether it can be solved in a particular case or not. The main question is whether there are cases that can deal with the scaling and where it makes sense to have attributes unordered, and whether these cases are frequent enough or important enough, and/or don't admit a reasonable alternative without unordered attributes to justify adding/keeping the unordered attributes in the generic syntax. Resolving unordered relative URLs is very easy for the browser (order both the attributes on the BASE and on the relative URL, then merge), and it is up to each scheme to decide whether and for what they want to use this feature, and how they can handle it. Regards, Martin.