RE: A proposed solution

Larry:
> >I think the group should reconsider compatibility with RFC
> 2557's algorithm for comparison.

Simon:

> I think that if we're going to be referencing RFC 2557,

I didn't suggest 'referencing RFC 2557', I suggested 'compatibility with
RFC 2557'.

> It seems clear at this point that RFC 2396 by itself doesn't provide a
> clean solution to the fairly basic needs of namespaces.

It wasn't intended to.

> The lack of a
> Uniform Comparison Algorithm is deeply unfortunate.

I learned in Math 101 that an 'equivalence relation' was any relation
that was reflexive (a ~ a), symmetric (if a ~ b then b ~ a) and transitive
 (if (a ~ b) and (b ~ c) then (a ~ c)) but that a set might have any number
of equivalence relations.  The set of all strings that are consistent with
the URI specification can have many different equivalence relations; we're
just trying to decide which one to use for namespace name equivalence.

The problem is not that there is no 'Uniform Comparison Algorithm', it's
that each application of URIs needs to decide, based on its needs, which
one to use.


> Tracking multiple RFCs to describe how supposedly simple and (hopefully)
> frequent comparisons should be made sounds like towing a semi-trailer with
> a Saturn, once again.  (Through quicksand, lately.)

The algorithm itself is simple; the fact that the definitions and comparison
algorithm is not compactly written is fixable. Are you arguing that the
algorithm is too complex, or just that you don't like the way it is
described?

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net

Received on Thursday, 15 June 2000 15:09:16 UTC