- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@attlabs.att.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:01:49 -0400
- To: uri@w3.org
[forwarded because this touches on fundamental concepts of the URI object, if you will pardon the expression. -Al] [Henrik opined] > Nope, there is nothing specific to HTTP URIs in this. As I have mentioned > before, it just so happens that HTTP URIs use all aspects of the URI > syntax defined by RFC 2396 and so there is a 1:1 mapping between the > equality rules defined for HTTP URIs and URIs and RFC 2396. It is more for > historic reasons that anything else that those rules are explained in the > HTTP spec and not in the URI spec. [Larry responded] I disagree. RFC 2396 does not define 'equality' rules for URIs because there are NO context-independent equality rules. HTTP is a context, and the equality rules defined in RFC 2616 (HTTP) only apply for the purposes of use within HTTP, e.g., for deciding whether two cached entries refer to the 'same' resource. There was never any intention that the equivalence rules in RFC 2616 would automatically apply to any other context for URIs. Regards, Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Monday, 24 July 2000 14:56:14 UTC