W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2002

Re: URIEquivalence-15 and IRIs

From: <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 08:41:51 +0100
Message-ID: <T5b4bda63e1c407b707828@reuters.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:52 UTC