Re: uri-comp draft necessary?

Am Mittwoch, 18.12.02, um 19:17 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Paul 

> Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>>  ... It would be difficult to
>> keep a straight face if the W3C TAG issued a document saying that
>> and HTTP://
>> were not equivalent then watching how that reacted with the notion 
>> that
>> namespace URIs should be dereferencable[0].
>> [0]
> 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:
> 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.

I think Dare's point was well made:

For HTTP servers and proxies, and 
HTTP:// must
be equivalent URIs. They have to follow RFC 2396 in that. Additionally, 
the server in
99,999% of all cases will not have a choice as it will not see the 
scheme name in the

As to your examples: I think any reasonable HTTP cache implementation 
would fold the second
and third URI in your example into one. So the cache would keep 4 
instances instead of 5. Otherwise
it would be interesting to add another chapter into the uri-comp draft 
for equivalence in HTTP
requests. ;)

> If allowing multiple definitions of "equivalence" is a fatal flaw to 
> an information system then the Web is already dead.

Yep. That's why: "we only need strcmp() for equivalence, so we can 
discard uri-comp draft" is
no good.


Received on Thursday, 19 December 2002 08:22:28 UTC