- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 14:42:32 -0500
- To: xml-uri@w3.org
At 14:54 2000 05 23 -0500, Al Gilman wrote: >At 09:16 AM 2000-05-23 -0400, Paul W. Abrahams wrote: >>James Clark wrote: >>> The problematic case is when you have >>> two URI references that are identical when compared as strings but refer >>> to different resources (because they have different base URIs). This is >>> like having obj1 == obj2 but not obj1.equals(obj2). >>But can that case arise in the namespace spec itself? >This is a narrower reading of the Namespaces Rec than some people would >seem to apply. The other comparison which may or may not be intended or >implied has to do with "binding the elements and attributes in the document >syntax-as-recognized to appropriate further processing." This is where >some vagueness lies, and we are exploring how to articulate a layering in a >backward-nondestructive, and forward-constructive, fashion. No, you're missing something. >>If I've overlooked something, do you have an example showing how the >uniqueness >>test can give misleading results because of different absolutizations of the >>attributes being compared? > >It's not the uniqueness test Yes, it is the uniqueness (of attributes) test. See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000May/0056 paul
Received on Tuesday, 23 May 2000 15:42:35 UTC