W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2006

Re: Equivalency

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:02:46 -0700
Message-ID: <452D15A6.1070003@gmail.com>
To: Jeffrey Winter <JeffreyWinter@crd.com>
CC: uri@w3.org

IMHO, URI Templates comparison should be case-sensitive and
character-by-character meaning that your two examples are not
equivalent.  The URIs resulting from each MAY be equivalent, but that's
a separate question.

- James

Jeffrey Winter wrote:
> 
> Nowhere does the spec define what constitutes equivalent
> URI templates.  Does
> 
>   http://example.org/{a} == http://example.org/{b} 
> 
> for example?  Barring any further type annotations
> to {a} and {b}, one would have to assume that is does.
> 
> An explicit rule would allow for validation where
> URI templates are used, like WADL.  This would
> seem to be a pathological condition:
> 
> <application 
>  	xmlns="http://research.sun.com/wadl/2006/07">
>   <resources base="http://example.org/">
>     <resource path="{a}">
>       <method href="#one"/>
>     </resource>
>     <resource path="{b}">
>       <method href="#two"/>
>     </resource>
>   <resources>
>   ...
> </application>
> 
> Given the URI templates implied, there's no
> way to determine which method to dispatch to.  With
> a defined notion of URI template equivalency, a
> validation rule could be defined for WADL processing.
> 
> - Jeff
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 11 October 2006 16:03:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:10 UTC