Re: A proposed solution

Perhaps it's just me but I just don't understand the proposal
I can't decide if it impacts on existing (or future) documents or not.


> [[[Definition: URI references which identify namespaces are considered
> identical when they are exactly the same character-for-character. Note
> that URI references which are not identical in this sense may in fact be
> functionally equivalent. Examples include URI references which differ
> only in case, or which are in external entities which have different
> effective base URIs.]]]

This paragraph, whilst architecturally objectionable to a small but
vocal minority was at least more or less clear in its intent.

but I honestly don't understand the suggested replacement.

If I annotate the proposed replacement then perhaps you could
suggest a clarified wording? (Judging by the responses so far I'm not
the only one who couldn't decide what this proposal would mean in
various cases)


> [[[According to RFC 2396 a URI reference can be either a relative or an
> absolute URI. The scheme of an absolute URI identifies the URI space to
> which that URI belongs. A URI space is typically defined with a set of
> properties concerning uniqueness, normalization rules etc. as well as
> one or more default mechanisms for resolving URIs belonging to that URI
> space.
> 

Given your previous clarification I would delete this paragraph
The second part about uri scheme specific normalisation rules and
properties would seem to indicate that these normalisations are
intended to be applied to namespace names that are absolute URI.
As you say that wasn't the intention, it just appears to be confusing.
(Also the first part would need ammending to mention uri reference lets
in #xxxx as well as relative URI.)


> An application is also responsible for ensuring that
> relative identifiers are not treated as unique identifiers across
> contexts as ignorance of context can make distinct identifiers appear
> undifferentiated.]]]

which application is this, the one generating the document or the one
reading it? If the latter, and it comes across a relative URI
namespace name that it decides breaks this rule? How does it
"ensure" the relative URI is not treated inappropriately?

  by making the effective namespace name absolute according to the current base?
  by raising a fatal error and not processing the document?
  either, depending on the application?
  something else entirely?

David

Received on Friday, 9 June 2000 19:35:48 UTC