- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:36:37 +0000
- To: <uri@w3.org>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Further to my earlier message [1], I've discussed the issue of URI normalization with some colleagues and we'd like to propose the following small change of wording with respect to [2]. ... Section 6.1, para 2, final sentence: The suggested change is to this sentence: [[ Therefore, comparison methods are designed to minimize false negatives while strictly avoiding false positives. ]] To be: [[ Therefore, comparison methods are designed to minimize false negatives while strictly avoiding false positives when used for purposes of retrieval. ]] Rationale: This reinforces the earlier comment that "URI comparison is performed in respect to some particular purpose" [section 6 intro], and I think provides the necessary get-out for those purposes other than retrieval for which the normalization processes described can result in false URI-equivalence (i.e. in circumstances where existing applications may legitimately deliver differing results). Graham Klyne Jeremy Carroll Pat Hayes [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004Feb/0094.html [2] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-04.txt ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2004 18:47:28 UTC