- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:02:02 -0700
- To: <abrahams@acm.org>
- Cc: <XML-uri@w3.org>, "Andrew Layman" <andrewl@microsoft.com>, "David Turner" <dturner@microsoft.com>
> It seems that you're defining identity to mean what the HTTP spec means by > equivalence. A URI is always an identifier and so I think you would expect the equivalence rules to be the same regardless of where the URI is used. That is at least my assumption. > Quite aside from whether this is a good idea or not, if that's > what you mean then you should say it explicitly: "Two namespace names are > identical if they are equivalent in the sense of the HTTP spec." (Obviously > that sentence needs some cleanup, but you get the idea.) Yes but I think there are two things that needs to be clarified: 1) The generator of a name has the responsiblity to know the semantics of the URI space that she is using 2) It is sufficient if a basic consumer only uses octet-by-octet comparison taking into account relative URIs. However, it is also fully acceptable for the consumer to know about special normalization rules of a URI space and apply those if so desired. Henrik
Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2000 01:02:58 UTC