- From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 01:03:37 -0700
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, "WWW-Tag" <www-tag@w3.org>
A namespace name is an opaque identifier not a hypertext link so why is there an expectation that XML parsers will be performing "link normalization" during processing? -- PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@apache.org] > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:52 AM > To: Dan Connolly > Cc: Tim Bray; WWW-Tag > > > >> More importantly, it is because the namespaces draft > cannot declare > >> them to be different because a normalizer has every right (and in > >> some cases a responsibility) to normalize those URIs before the > >> namespace processor even sees them. > > > > For example? > > > > I find this argument hard to follow without a concrete example here. > > Normalization of identifiers is often done by link management > systems to reduce unnecessary duplication of URI trees by > sloppy human folks, since such duplication effects both > downstream caches and the valuation function applied by > third-party indexers. It was one of the most common feature > requests for MOMspider. > > I expect that similar normalizers will work on xmlns > attributes, with or without blessing of the specification, > because such duplication might have significant performance > implications on a system that processes and combines XML from > many sources (e.g., Cocoon, blogs, etc.). Besides, its just > untidy, and there's no shortage of anal folks in the Web > content industry. > > ....Roy > >
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 04:03:49 UTC