Re: [XML-URI] HTTP extensions framework comparison

At 10:08 AM 7/27/00 -0700, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
>Because there is no link between the equality rules and HTTP, there is no
>difference between when HTTP wants to compare URIs and other
>specifications want to compare URIs and it therefore doesn't make sense to
>define different rules for comparison when the comparison in fact doesn't
>depend on the context (HTTP, or other specs).

As much as I'd like to have a single algorithm for comparing URIs, I don't
find the claim that 'there is no link between the equality rules and HTTP'
when the comparison rules you're describing are in the HTTP specification,
not RFC 2396.

Unless another document describing URIs _in general_ explicitly makes the
claim that the HTTP rules are to apply across URI contexts, I can't find it
remotely believable to accept that as the case.  If that should be the
case, I would strongly recommend revisiting and revising RFC 2396.

To back to what Larry Masinter said:
>> There was never any intention that the equivalence rules in RFC 2616
>> would automatically apply to any other context for URIs.

It really feels like the http scheme is complicating namespace URI
discussions in an astonishing number of ways.

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

Received on Thursday, 27 July 2000 13:45:15 UTC