- From: <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 08:41:51 +0100
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
On 05/06/2002 03:33:08 noah_mendelsohn wrote:
> Misha Wolf writes:
>
> >> Reasons to be careful include that the decisions taken on these
> matters:
> >> - will be with us for a long time :-)
> >> - will affect URI matching in XML Namespaces
> >> - will affect URI matching in RDF
>
> That bit about namespace matching makes me nervous. Last time
> namespace matching came up I think we generated 3000+ emails,
> and only barely eked out consensus.
Indeed, that's one of the reasons we are suggesting caution :-)
> Seriously: I think we should approach changes to namespace
> matching with great trepidation, if at all. As an implementor, I
> can confirm that namespaces are already a very serious impediment
> to truly high performance XML processing. Any further changes
> (or even clarifications) to matching rules should be evaluated
> with great care. The performance considerations for namespace
> matching (and perhaps for RDF as well) are not necessarily the
> same as when URIs are used for resource retrievals.
AFAIK, there are no unresolved issues of URI/IRI matching relating to
resource retrieval. This TAG issue relates to URI/IRI equivalence in
the absence of retrieval.
Regards,
Misha
------------------------------------------------------------- ---
Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2002 03:43:52 UTC