- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:28:03 -0800
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Chris Lilley wrote: > On Saturday, November 30, 2002, 12:54:30 AM, David wrote: > > DO> I think this is an excellent idea. We should also make sure that we have > DO> these comparison types easily referencable from other specifications. This > DO> way specs could easily refer into the comparison types. > > Here is another comparison type (hostname case insensitive, optional > default portnumber) Er Chris, I think the draft kind of covered that. Did you read through to the end? ... > > Perhaps this gives a very practical tie-in to > http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-webarch-20021115/#URI-scheme > > which used to say not to use unregistered schemes, but now does not > (because testing requires use before registration). Yep. Let's get them stabilized and revisit. > Which requires accepting that URI comparison is, indeed, specification > specific. Whether two URIs are equivalent depends on why you want to > know, and what you plan to do with the information. This makes me > uncomfortable - I had some sympathy for TimBLs assertion that URI > comparison is not spec specific - but equally, there are such a wide > range of circumstances where URIs are compared. The constraints and > expected results for comparing two namespace URIs are not the same > as, for example, a proxy cache comparing the incoming URI request with > what resources (including variants and etags and last modify dates) it > has in its cache. Once again, I think the draft says that. > TimB, in your document, section entitled "Rules Governing URIs" the > first two paragraphs talk of characters and the third skips on to > bytes without examining the relationship between the two. I agree that > RFC 2396 has the same mistake, hence the need for IRI, but the > ambiguity should at least be noted in passing in that section, I feel. > Its treated later, right at the end of '%-Escaping Issues' but that is > too late to introduce such an important concept. Right, work needed, also in light of MDuerst's explication of %-escaping issues. > If the hex-aware string comparison scheme was used, then an appendix > could provide an unambiguous and authoritative fully hexified form of > the namespace URI, for incorporation into software; it would match the > unhexified or partially-hexified form correctly and since it used only > 0-9 a-f and % it would be typographicaly unambiguous even when > printed. Good point. -Tim
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 15:10:43 UTC