RE: IRI and URI comparisions (was Re: charmodReview-17, LC-k lyne26, LC-kopecky5, LC-kopecky6, LC-booth3, LC-schema17)

Hello Stuart,

At 11:02 04/03/29 +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote:
>Hello Martin,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org]
> > Sent: 28 March 2004 18:45
> > To: Williams, Stuart; Chris Lilley
> > Cc: www-archive@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: IRI and URI comparisions (was Re:
> > charmodReview-17, LC-k lyne26, LC-kopecky5, LC-kopecky6,
> > LC-booth3, LC-schema17)
> >
> > Hello Stuart,
> >
> >
> > At 08:54 04/03/26 +0000, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> >
> > >[trimmed this down to just you and Martin]
> > >
> > > > I am saying that one should either compare IRIs, or
> > canonicalize the
> > > > IRIs to URIs and compare the fully canonicalized forms (ie, fully
> > > > hexified and upper case, not lower, for the hex digits A to F).
> > >
> > >So... if you do a character-by-character comparision for on two IRI and
> > >find them to be different - as a design requirement on the canonicalize
> > >IRI to URI mapping - would you expect the canonicalize URI to be
>different?
> > >
> > >ie.
> > >
> > >   forall x,y in IRI: not( x==y ) => not( iriToUri(x) == iriToUri(x) )
> > >
> > >   where == is character-by-character comparison.
> >
> > Well, I would, but I'm probably too used to this stuff to count :-).
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Oh... now you've surprised me...

I'm really sorry for the confusion. What I wanted to say was that
I would expect the current behavior.

Regards,   Martin.


>because I would to and AFAICT this is not a
>property of the current iriToUri mapping. eg, as before,
>http://www.example.org/ros%C3%A9 and http://www.example.org/rosé
>
><snip/>
>
> > Regards,    Martin.
>
>regards
>
>Stuart
>--

Received on Monday, 29 March 2004 11:32:34 UTC