- From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 19:21:29 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- cc: David Carlisle <david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk>, xml-uri@w3.org
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > The rules I have advocated is that a receiver MUST at least perform > octet-by-octet (ignoring relative URIs for that other day) but MAY apply > URI space equality rules if it knows about them. It's already the case that a receiver MAY choose to treat any two names, though lexically distinct, as the same. For example, the attributes "id" and "ID" might be treated as the same. Or all namespaces that match the pattern "/rfc\d+\.txt$" might be treated as the same provided the digit string is the same. Or attributes without prefixes might be treated the same as the corresponding attributes with the same prefix as the element. And so on. All of this is highly processor-specific and not fit for standardization. > 1) Apply literal comparison (ignoring relative URIs for now) > 2) Apply URI scheme context dependent equality rules > 3) Perform resolution of the URI if a mechanism is known for > how to do this > 4) Interpret the response and learn how to deal with it the > namespace in some way > 5) etc. > > Only level 1) is mandatory. Level 2) to 4) and beyond can fail or not be > performed at all. If, however, they are performed, they may provide the > application with information that two namespace URIs really are the same > and it is fully valid for the recipient to apply this knowledge if it can > do so. Just so. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org C'est la` pourtant que se livre le sens du dire, de ce que, s'y conjuguant le nyania qui bruit des sexes en compagnie, il supplee a ce qu'entre eux, de rapport nyait pas. -- Jacques Lacan, "L'Etourdit"
Received on Monday, 7 August 2000 18:35:11 UTC