- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:17:04 -0800
- To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
- CC: WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Dare Obasanjo wrote: > ... It would be difficult to > keep a straight face if the W3C TAG issued a document saying that > > http://www.example.com and HTTP://www.example.com > > were not equivalent then watching how that reacted with the notion that > namespace URIs should be dereferencable[0]. > > [0] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#namespaceDocument-8 How would they react? So two different URIs happen to serve the same document. Big deal. It happens all of the time on the Web-as-we-know-it. These URIs all deliver the same data: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/ http://www.MICROSOFT.com/presspass/ http://www.microsoft.com/PRESSPASS/ http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/default.asp Nevertheless, I would be _extremely_ annoyed if my HTTP cache treated them as the same URI just because at some level unrelated to URI comparison somebody decided that it would be useful if they delivered equivalent representations. If allowing multiple definitions of "equivalence" is a fatal flaw to an information system then the Web is already dead. Paul Prescod
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2002 13:17:40 UTC