Re: [XML-URI] HTTP extensions framework comparison

At 02:57 PM 7/19/00 +0100, John Aldridge wrote:
>At 20:29 18/07/00 -0700, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
>> > The Http Extensions Framework (RFC 2774) has an identification
>> > mechanism similar to XML Namespaces.
>>
>>You are right that it is very similar in intent but as you say, HTTP-EF
>>doesn't allow relative URIs and it is certainly the intent that it uses
>>the comparison algorithm described in the HTTP/1.1 spec, see
>>
>>     http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec3.html#sec3.2.3
>
>I just skimmed RFC 2774, and I don't think it mandates the use of http 
>URIs; so I take your statement to mean that, when an application is 
>searching extension declarations for something it knows how to process, it 
>must use the comparison rules in RFC 2616 if it is looking for http URI 
>names, and literal comparison otherwise.
>
>Are you advocating this as a general rule for saying whether two URIs name 
>the same resource, or just for comparison for the purposes of RFC 
>2774?  Either way, it seems odd to require processors to have special 
>knowledge of the http scheme in this way.

I think John's on to something here.  The need for a consistent way to
compare URIs - a default, at least - is the largest reason I think RFC 2396
needs to be revised.  I don't see any reason for the HTTP scheme's rules to
be used as the default in the absence of any such declaration.  This needs
to be hammered out and made explicit.

I'm not sure that finding such a comparison will be any easier than sorting
out the philosophical issues, however.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2000 10:04:53 UTC