- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:52:17 -0700
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > <original> > The introduction of new URI schemes SHOULD be avoided. > </original> > <proposed> > The unnecessary introduction of new URI schemes SHOULD be avoided. > </proposed> > - or - > <proposed> > The introduction of new URI schemes SHOULD be minimized. > </proposed> > > Presumably there are, from time to time, good reasons for introducing new > schemes. Introduction of such schemes SHOULD NOT be avoided IMO. The > original suggests it's always a bad idea. Yes, but isn't this exactly the semantic of SHOULD - do it unless there's a reason not to? Also I'd like to leave the language strong here because there does seem to be a hunger out there to invent them, cf WebDAV. > <original> > It is often necessary to compare URIs for equivalence to determine whether > they identify the same resource. URI schemes vary in their definitions of > equivalence. > > For example, URNs > </original> > > I understand and agree with what's intended by this statement. On the > other hand, it seems to unintentionally open the broader question of > taking two arbitrary URI's and determining using some general means > whether they refer to the same resource. For example, does > (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml) refer to the same resource as > (http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006). I believe that, at the > moment, it does. > > <proposed> > It is not in general possible to determine by inspection whether two > different URI's refer to the same resource. Particular URI schemes MAY, > however, mandate equivalence for particular sets of URIs using that > scheme. > > For example, URNs ... > </proposed> Yep, good catch. Will fix up & republish. -Tim
Received on Monday, 29 July 2002 17:52:23 UTC