- 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
Correct. 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 namespaces. 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. Misha -----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 http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-xml-names11-20021218/#IRIComparison are very useful for explaining both the coherent positions. 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/rosé * 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 identifiers. 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