- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:35:34 -0800
- To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>
>I would think it is absolutize and canonicalize. URI's can >have things like escaped characters as well. Further, XML >allows characters that are illegal in URIs. We need to say >something about illegal URI characters in SOAP roles. The current text about URIs in SOAP suggests that we don't say anything about how URIs compare. The reason is that URI comparison is a function of the URI scheme and as SOAP doesn't say anything about specific URI schemes, it can say nothing about how these may compare other than referring to RFC 2396. >XLink section 5.4[1] describes one mechanism for computing an >absolute and canonical URI and handles illegal characters. For the sake of stability and interoperability of the Web, I find it disturbing that so many specs seem to have their own idea about how to deal with URIs. I am wondering why it was not considered to link to [2] for encoding rules? Henrik >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/#link-locators [2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2718.txt
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2001 14:36:08 UTC