RE: uri-comp draft necessary?

Is the TAG issue about URIs or namespace names? I don't see anything wrong with namespaces in XML deciding to use character by character based comparison for namespace names (that happen to use URI syntax) but believe it is unwise to somehow propose that this is how all URI (i.e. URN or URL) comparisons should work. 

 -----Original Message----- 
 From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@prescod.net] 
 Sent: Thu 12/19/2002 11:02 AM 
 To: Miles Sabin; www-tag@w3.org 
 Cc: 
 Subject: Re: uri-comp draft necessary?
 
 


 Miles Sabin wrote:
 
 > Paul Prescod wrote,
 >
 > >Everyone agrees we don't want to go there. Let's not go there. Next
 > >issue?
 >
 >
 > If we end up in a situation where we're saying that one or other of,
 >
 >
 >
 > and,
 >
 >
 >
 > is frowned on (which one, I wonder, and why?) then we're going there
 > willy nilly.
 >
 > That's where this alleged "best practice" leads.
 
 I think you're trying to invent a problem where there isn't one. Have
 you ever seen two namespace declarations that differed only in case?
 Have you ever seen software that produces them? Have you ever seen
 software that was confused by them? This "best practice" is common sense
 and writing it down is at worst (and probably at best!) a waste of time.
 
 You're using a lot of rhetorically charged words like "willy nilly" and
 "changing through the back door" and "opening a can of worms". But can
 you please outline a realistic scenario in which there is a problem
 caused by having a string-based equivalence for namespace URIs and yet
 having them be dereferencable (and thus _also_ subject to protocol
 equivalence constraints). I'm waiting to hear of a scenario where a lung
 machine explodes or a purchase order goes awry or ...
 
   Paul Prescod

Received on Thursday, 19 December 2002 15:25:27 UTC