RE: uri-comp draft necessary?

The whole discussion about equality relating to files versus directories
versus other names is kind of impossible to fully resolve on the client
side.  The equivalence function for two URIs can only be truly known by the
URI's domain, and we don't have any notion or suggestions of moving towards
passing two URIs to a domain for an equivalence test.  A Web service request
to example.com asking it to compare 2 URIs just seems way too hard and
impractical.

All we can really do given two URIs is really worry about what can
reasonably be assumed by the non-domain owner of two URIs.  So I exclude
index.html, index.html, default.asp, and all other kinds of filenames from
the uri-comp.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Jeremy Dunck
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 6:59 PM
> To: paul@prescod.net; miles@milessabin.com; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: uri-comp draft necessary?
>
>
>
> >From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
> >Miles Sabin wrote:
> > > ...
> >
> >>Right, but this document uses five distinct namespaces,
> <snip>
> >Whether the TAG says it or not, choosing names that are
> non-equivalent by
> >network infrastructure rules is merely common sense and I've
> never heard of
> >a violation of that rule.
> >
>
> I'm not sure of the context of this argument... It seems to
> be more about
> namespace URIs than URLs as used on the web in general.  At
> any rate, I'd
> caution against the assertion that character case doesn't
> matter in URLs.
> It happens not to in IIS, because IIS directly maps URL
> heirarchies to its
> file system, and that underlying file system is not case sensitive.
> However, in Apache, and per the RFC (IIRC) URLs -are- case
> sensitive, and
> therefore http://www.microsoft.com/foo should not be
> considered the same
> resource as http://www.microsoft.com/fOo, regardless of what current
> improper implementations of web servers exist.
>
> Hopefully, you're arguing a different line, and I can stop
> worrying.  ;)
>
> >As far as "/" vs. "/default.asp", I'm 99% sure that IIS lets
> me take more
> >fine grained control of that default equivalence if I need
> to do so. If
> >I've been silly enough to deploy those two namespace URIs, I
> am probably
> >not hosed...it will just take a little bit more effort to
> disambiguate
> >them.
> >
>
> It does.  Any given file (in the current directory) can be made the
> "default" for a particular directory, so that "/" and "/foo"
> can be the
> same.
>
> As a side note, I'm pretty sure that a request to
> "www.example.com/somedirectory" is not even treated as equivalent to
> "www.example.com/somedirectory/" by IIS... I think the former
> request is
> redirected to the latter.
>
> >  Paul Prescod
>
>   -Jeremy Dunck
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2002 23:19:56 UTC