- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:01:31 -0800
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Cc: WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Martin Duerst wrote: > - The 'Status of this document' says 'This is the second draft'. > Guess this should be 'third'. By the time I make this change, it'll be the fifth :) > - The first sentence of the Introduction can be read two ways: > "Software is commonly required to compare two URIs." > Does this mean: > "Comparing URIs is rarely done by hand, software is commonly used to > do the job." > or: > "Software often has a need to compare two URIs." Both. I think it's fine. > - Please include some examples for 'Simple String Comparison' I have berated other people enough times over this issue that I can hardly push back, but really? Presumably people know about simple string comparison... > - I have to disagree that http://dir/a and http://dir/%61 can be > considered to be different. ... > I therefore suggest that the section on %-escaping be the first > section of RFC2396-Sensitive Comparison, and that it nails down > that %-equivalence (e.g. ~ == %7E == %7e) is (as currently observed) > and be (to be specified by specifications) the minimal (baseline) > equivalence to be respected by resolution-related operations > (as opposed to namespace-like equivalences). (with the exception > of reserved characters) Except for, in EBCDIC, %61 is '/', a reserved character; so on an EBCDIC computer, what you see on the screen as /dir/a and /dir/%61 reference different URIs. And if you were writing EBCDIC software, you'd have to be careful. Personally, if I were rewriting 2396 I would simply decree that all %-escaping be done on the UTF-8 mapping and only the UTF-8 mapping, and be forbidden unless it's compulsory. But that's not what 2396 currently says. > I'd be glad to help with some actual text. Please. -Tim
Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 18:01:31 UTC