Re: uri-comp draft necessary?

Stefan Eissing wrote:

> As a small example of strcmp shortcomings: XML namespaces seem to work
> fine with their
> definition of equivalence. However the current efforts to make
> "namespace documents"
> accessible on the web will have to cope with the false negatives of
> strcmp. One will
> have a hard time providing different documents for
> "" and
> "http://EXAMPLE.ORG/myns".

How does it hurt anyone if two URIs return the same RDDL document? I've 
advocated that RDDL documents should be explicit about the namespace 
they are describing so there wouldn't even be the possibility of 
confusion that there are "two namespaces". If the RDDL doc is 
unambiguous, it could be served from a hundred different URIs and it 
wouldn't hurt anything. If it is NOT clear about what URI it declares, 
then you have only the "harm" of thinking that a namespace exists which 
the RDDL document publisher did not intend to exist. I still don't see 
how that is a big problem.

  Paul Prescod

Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2002 12:42:47 UTC