W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2003

RE: consistency between namspaces 1.1 and URI spec (RFC2396-bis)

From: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:56:32 +0100
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-id: <6C7917E7CF594D4D927281EAED8E326E5DC401@LONSMSXM02.emea.ime.reuters.com>


The W3C I18N WG has argued all along that we should stay with:
  ~ <> %7e <> %7E
as demonstrated by the examples you quote.  The allows the use 
of strcmp().

Some people are arguing that the following should be true:
  ~ = %7e = %7E
and they appear to see this as a problem for the use of IRIs in 

It is *not* a problem for the use of IRIs in namespaces.  If it 
is a problem at all (and I don't agree that it is), then it is 
a problem for the use of *URIs* in namespaces.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
Sent: 29 April 2003 05:26
To: www-tag@w3.org
Subject: consistency between namspaces 1.1 and URI spec (RFC2396-bis)

Bray and Berners-Lee seemed to say, today, that you couldn't
write software that conforms to both the namespaces
spec and RFC2396bis.

I don't see why not.

I can see two coherent positions on IRIEverywhere
and URIEquivalence: identifiers in Web Architecture
are strings over either a <96 character alphabet
or over a >10000 character alphabet.

The examples in section 2.3 Comparing IRI References
of the 18Dec namespaces CR
are very useful for explaining both the coherent

There are 4 lists of examples. The first is:

  * http://www.example.org/wine
  * http://www.Example.org/wine
  * http://www.example.org/Wine

In both the <96 and the >1000 positions, there
are three distinct identifiers in that list.

On that much we are all agreed, yes?

The next list of examples in the namespaces 1.1 CR is:

  * http://www.example.org/rosť
  * http://www.example.org/ros%c3%a9
  * http://www.example.org/ros%c3%A9
  * http://www.example.org/ros%C3%a9
  * http://www.example.org/ros%C3%A9

In the <96 view, the first item in that list isn't
an identifier (though it can be used as short-hand
notation in some formats for the last identifier in
the list) but the other 4 items are distinct
identifiers. In the >1000 view, that's a list
of 5 distinct identifiers.

The next list of examples is:

  * http://www.example.org/~wilbur
  * http://www.example.org/%7ewilbur
  * http://www.example.org/%7Ewilbur

and in either view, that's a list of 3 distinct

So an implementation that compares identifiers
charcter-by-character seems necessary and
sufficient in either view; in the <96 view,
you have to %xx-lify XML attribute values
before you treat them as identifiers
and in the >1000 view you don't. But in either
case, this software is consistent with
the URI spec, no?

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

-------------------------------------------------------------- --
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more
information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging

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 Tuesday, 29 April 2003 07:57:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:58 UTC